I have made a practice on my blog of welcoming everyone who comments, and thanking them for their comments, regardless of what those comments contain. Similarly, I have promised to respond to everyone who takes the time to comment, and to give the best response possible. I do make an exception for those who don't seem to be sincere, who simply post slurs or who accuse me of being a shill for the CPAs or the oil industry. However, provided a writer seems to sincerely wish to discuss the issues, I respond as civilly as possible. I may sometimes get a bit heated, but I also always try to maintain some degree of civility.

In the past, this insistence on treating political debate as a civilized undertaking has upset some, here and in the comment sections of other blogs. Some people have objected that it is not proper to "play at being nice" as this is "a matter of life and death". They allege that maintaining this civil tone make sit seem like this is all a game, and we are engaged in detached debate.

I think this difference of perspective comes form one very simple cause. In my mind, when I debate someone, I am trying to convince them. Or, to be more accurate, I am arguing as forcefully as I can for what I believe, and seeing whether my positions or theirs will prove the more durable. Much as it may upset some,  who think it an idle intellectual game, I am still looking for truth. I am trying to show them that my beliefs are correct, while, at the same time, I am also seeing if their beliefs might not prove more consistent than my own. In short, I am not just trying to persuade them, but also testing my ideas each time, to see if they come up short.

However, that does not mean I am engaged solely in trying to find the truth for myself. I am also hoping that the other party might be persuaded to see my side, to find a more accurate understanding through the debate. In general I believe that most people want to know the truth and want to be guided by an accurate understanding of the world. Very rare is the individual who wants to do harm, or wishes to persist in error. Many of us came to conservatism from another belief, and were persuaded ourselves, and so many of those to whom we speak, even those most different from us, are possible future conservatives.

On the other hand, many of those who are so serious about their arguments, who think it is wrong to maintain a civil tone or to admit one may be in error, see themselves as engaged in a public debate, akin to the presidential debates. In their minds they are not looking for truth, they already posses it. Nor is their opponent sincerely seeking after truth, their opponent is an exemplar of an erroneous belief, actively trying to cause harm. In this Manichean political perspective, every debate is a public conflict in the struggle between light and dark, an effort to sway those not yet committed to one side or the other, and every opponent is not mistaken but evil.

And I suppose if one thinks this way it does make sense to be as obnoxious as one can to discredit the opposition. But I am not ready to believe that everyone who does not believe in the same things I do is a complete reprobate beyond redemption. Nor is it a good idea to write off even those farthest to the left. After all, which does more good, to win over a handful of "independents" whose behavior suggests their dedication is as deep as a saucer, if that, and who are likely to change sides again the moment they hear a more eloquent speech, or to win over a former believer from the other side? If you manage to convert the opposition, then you can stop worrying about the middle.

And, if that doesn't convince you that civility may be the way to go, recall that Reagan was himself once a Democrat, and among the ranks of the socialist and communists were once von Hayek and von Mises. Had not someone taken the time to persuade them, perhaps everyone I just mentioned, and many more, including me, would have spent their time and energy arguing for the other side.

POSTSCRIPT

I realize some may find a bit of a jarring disparity between my early talk of finding truth and my later talk of "the other side", but ti is not as strange as it might seem. Yes, I am open to the possibility that my beliefs may be false, at least in some specifics. However, I am also not so blind as to not realize I have tested my beliefs quite extensively, and the chance that the whole structure will be overthrown is small. Given that, then I am probably right in thinking the philosophy of the left will do harm if allowed to continue unchecked. Thus, speaking of the "other side" is not a contradiction of my statement that I am open to alternate philosophies. But until my philosophy proves false, I have to function as if it were true, and so there is, until proved otherwise, an "other side" against which to struggle.

POSTSCRIPT II

For those who are curious, my writing on evil and mistaken beliefs, see the following:

Life Without Villains
Evil and Greed
Enemies Into Villains
Rethinking My Earlier Position
The Nature of Evil

As you can see, my views have evolved somewhat, but even the early posts have quite a bit of truth to them.