Ask yourself: when was the last time you freely discussed any conservative or even moderate political view with friends at work, or on campus, or in public, or at a large social gathering — without hedging your every word? When? Can you identify a single recent instance when you felt your conservative or even moderate views would be tolerated without provoking name-calling or public shaming into the nearest corner of societal oblivion?
Kyle-Anne Shiver notes the tactics in modern political debate and suggests fixing this requires, first, fully identifying the problem. She is not the only one to highlight the problem. The recent debate among GOP presidential contenders also raised the awareness by having the question become the issue rather than the response.
Shaver’s list of five tactics include: (5) perception over reality in media; (4) inability to swallow the dishonesty of ridicule; (3) inability to grasp the values gap implications; (2) conflict avoidance; (1) undiagnosed Stockholm Syndrome.
It is like the civility issue where Palin was castigated for using crosshairs to target a market yet a union boss’s comments about “take them out” is ignored. These sorts of things must be made visible to, perhaps, obtain a better integrity in discussing ideas.