I was watching a CSpan live broadcast of the booksellers' convention, and there was a very interesting debate between Bill O'Reilly, Molly Ivans and Al Frankin. Granted, none of them are what I'd consider the greatest political pundits of our day, but it was very interesting to see how it was played out.

It was nothing less than an overposturing example of hatred between both spectrums of the political debates. What obviously made it worse was Al Frankin had a pre-copy of his cover of his new book, that was titled something like "Lies They Want Us To Know And the Liars That Tell Them." Or something very similar to that. The picture on the cover shows Al Frankin posturing like he usually does, and he's in front of a bunch of news screens, in which Bill O'Reilly is one of the "liars" of the four screens that are shown behind Frankin. So, this set the tone for a very abusive debate between Bill O'Reilly and Al Frankin. After the debate, there was nothing but talk about "bullying tactics" of Bill O'Reilly, and it was pretty embarassing to have watched, even if one wasn't a fan of Bill O'Reilly. But this isn't actually about O'Reilly, or even about Frankin himself. Both men were way out of line during this debate, and surprisingly, Ivans was the only one that seemed polite during this whole discussion.

But here's the issue: the very last question asked by a caller was something along the lines of: "Don't the three of you have a responsibility to at least try to communicate to the rest of the world rather than try to keep these discussions polar and never try to seek a common ground? Why can't all of you at least try talking to the American people instead of preaching at us. Why can't there be a middle opinion to communicate with the rest of America?"

The responses to this were: (yes, I'm sure you suspect it) ignore the question and talk about their personal bias towards the "wrong" side of what's being discussed. They all had an opportunity to discuss the middle ground, the area where everyone could agree, and essentially it came down to both sides indicating that this was impossible because THE OTHER SIDE is incapable of doing this. This wasn't the tactic of just the right. This wasn't the tactic of just the left. It was the tactic of both sides, and no matter what the issue, it was not possible to discuss the issue in fairness because the other side was never going to give in a single bit.

It was a very sad realization that came out of this debate. The only way to discuss any of the issues that they had was to be abusive towards the other side. Al Frankin, from his book cover alone, was abuse towards Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly, by being Bill O'Reilly, was extremely abusive to any opinion brought out by the left. There was zero communication during the debate. It was nothing but posturing and hatred towards each other. I found it extremely sad to listen to.

And then the follow up questions AFTER the debate were essentially people on both sides of the spectrum repeating allegations against the other side as well. Even the questions were designed around hatred towards one or the other side. They either loved the right, or they hated the right. They either loved the left, or they hated the left. Even the ones who claimed to be open to both opinions would finish off their question (or statement) with a hatred-bearing opinion against the other side, but I guess because they said they were neutral, it was okay to then go on the warpath.

I'm curious. Are we so far down the road towards alienation that we can't communicate anymore? I saw a lot of that attitude on many of the boards where I participate. But rather than try to communicate when it was brought out as a problem, one side would respond that it was impossible because someone on the other side was always going to be abusive towards them, so there was no choice.

Have we come that far that we can't communicate with each other anymore? Is posturing and insults all we have left?

Stumble It!