Civil Discourse

I thoroughly enjoyed reading George Packer's intelligent reflection on the President's early initiatives and the response they've received from the opposition. Packer brilliantly points out that the scope of Obama's agenda is not being set by ideological opportunism, but necessitated by an inherited set of well-documented and wide-ranging failures (let's not forget, as he says, that "Facts drove the Republicans out of power").

Packer's article is, in part, a response to David Brooks, who gives a refreshingly civil and insightful response from the right. Brooks expresses concern, and rightly, that "we are operating far beyond our economic knowledge." Unlike many of his ideological counterparts, though, Brooks expresses a cautious optimism in the administration, a desire that his criticisms be proved wrong and that the country be set on the right path, even if it is not his recommended path. He is insightful, measured, respectful, and intelligent--a true breath of fresh air.

It seems to me that, considering our current state of affairs, we can neither afford nor tolerate the abundance of baseless accusations and posturing that seek to criticize without justification or the offering of an alternative; nor can we disdain and ignore criticism and rush forward unilaterally. Both must be avoided at all costs if we are to have a fruitful and ongoing debate.

If I remember correctly, I think that's the point of democracy.