Who would win a debate between Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh? I ask this rhetorically, since I truly have no preference; you may think of Maher and Limbaugh as polar opposites, I see them as one-in-the same, Maher the Democratic champion on HBO, Limbaugh the conservative radio icon.
The strategy is the same for both these two: bash the other side, develop a loyal audience, generate fans that accept you and reject your counter-part.
Each dismisses their opponent as wrong, wrong on anything, wrong on everything; they are mirrors of each other, just as the mirror reflects, a reverse image of the other.
A symbiotic relationship is developed to each other, they need each other, they feed off each other; like lawyers need lawyers to make a living, Maher and Limbaugh need each other to develop their fans; Maher and Limbaugh mirror the two political parties, each needing the other to develop their constituency.
All this would be harmless entertainment, except for the damage that is done; arrogant media phonies distract us from our task; they polarize society, they fracture society, and society starts to crumble; they leave the problems mounting, solutions lost to the rhetoric.
This style of argument is all the rage, we see it everywhere; we see it in talk radio, we see it in television talk shows; we see it at political conventions, we see it on the congressional floor; we see it in the halls of justice, we see it on the mean streets; people are in each others' faces, there is no listening, there is only shouting; communication is not the intent, positioning is the purpose, and from that positioning comes only polarization.
If war is the goal, then this is the road; for when sides stop listening, there can be no peace; if progress is the goal, if solutions are truly sought, there is better process, a process that brings solutions.
History has witnessed many political battles, some which are yet to be resolved; yet history best remembers those where compromise found a way; the U.
S.
Constitution is one such example.
You might think that after the revolution won independence, government would be congenially formed; the Americans fought side-by-side to the same goal, and that goal now achieved, should bring them together; yet, the prospect of division is always present.
Even in its first days, America was split by two political philosophies: some states demanded a weak central government that would not infringe on states' rights, other states saw the need for a strong central government necessary to survive foreign threats, and slavery was always much the protagonist between the two.
These dividing philosophies threatened drafting of a constitution, these two philosophies threatened the formation of the United States.
The debate continued for months, resolution was close to lost; yet, the founding fathers knew what was at stake and that resolution must be found.
In that spirit, they put aside their differences to reach a greater goal; they found the strength to write the U.
S.
Constitution.
What remains most remarkable is that in this intense political battle, the two sides were able to find a solution, not with a patchwork product that resembled their bickering, but with one of histories greatest documents.
British Prime Minister William Gladstone, in 1878 called the U.
S.
Constitution the "...
most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.
" Respect for the other side leads to communication, communication to compromise, compromise to solutions; America needs leaders daring enough to embrace these skills.
America has such a better example to follow; we don't need Maher versus Limbaugh.
Rick Lawrence, June 6, 2009 DemosResPublica.
com