Last night, I had the pleasure to attend the debate sponsored by Cooper Union in New York City between the Hon. Mario Cuomo and the Hon. Newt Gingrich. It was moderated by noneother than Tim Russert and served to kick-off the Cooper Union Dialogue series leading up to the 2008 election.
While I will leave the full historical context up to Unitary Moonbat http://www.dailykos.com/..., suffice it to say that it was impressed on all that this was the site of Abraham Lincoln's February 1860 "Right makes Might" speech that directly led him to the Republican nomination eleven weeks later. We live in historical times, and sometimes enlightened discourse between two intellectual adversaries can make a difference.
Join me on the flip to discuss what I learned...
We are better than they are. Let me say that again. We are better than they are. Why, you ask?
For all the meta-discussions and troll fights about what type of community we want to be, I usually take it for granted that people interested enough in politics to join an online community or attend a debate are generally going to appreciate honest intellectual discourse. Particularly when the debate is among two leading intellectuals whose names are not on the ballot (although Gingrich could change that). Last night proved to me that I was wrong. Just four feet away from me was a row of what I will charitably label "Ditto-heads."
Understand that this debate was taking place in the East Village in Manhattan. It was a free, self-selecting event. The crowd was decidedly more liberal than not. So, when Gingrich spoke for half an hour, it was not before the home team crowd. Nevertheless, he provided some thought-provoking comments at times, and the crowd was generally respectful. My friends and I even politely applauded at some of his more progressive ideas as to campaign reform and increased debate (even if they were absolute non-flyers because the major parties would never sign on). Think of it as somewhat akin to the response by the non-presidential party during the State of the Union address.
Let's turn now to the Ditto-head response to Cuomo. They outright heckled and jeered at him. Verbally. Vocally. When Cuomo spoke about stem cell research, he talked about the current president's faith-based opposition on account of his belief that life begins at conception. They screamed out: "Your religion as well." Cuomo continued by pointing out that his own religion had scholars that differed on that fundamental point, and that the First Amendment prohibited mixing government with religious belief. What did the Ditto-heads do? They booed him. Not just one person. But not a coordinated response either. Just a bunch of Ditto-heads who found themselves in the same general area, who had the same visceral reaction to the ideas of Mario Cuomo.
On several other topics as well. I'm not going to dwell on the substance of the debate here, because that's not the point. As you can probably imagine, Cuomo's positions were generally more in line with the crowd and drew more applause. He equated the current president's policies in Baghdad and New Orleans. He argued for raising taxes on the top 1%. He railed against the health care system.
Gingrich wanted to starve the North Koreans and blow up the Iranian oil refineries. I kid you not. His diplomatic solution was to make use of the fact that we are the richest country in the history of the world and lone superpower and force the world to our way of thinking through economic aggression.
(Cuomo did have one funny line that appeared to be somewhat extemporaneous. The professor handling introductions noted that 30 years ago, during a debate with Abe Beame, Bella Abzug and Mario Cuomo on the same stage, someone threw a cream pie at Mayor Beame and hit him in the face. Cuomo leaped off the stage and tackled the guy in the audience. Now jump forward 30 years -- Gingrich opened by calling Cuomo an ORATOR several times. Cuomo took mock offense and retorted that the term ORATOR had a certain level of POMPOUSNESS associated with it. Rather, after hearing that introduction, he felt that he was less pompous and more PIOUS.)
Maybe I'm naive. There will always be hecklers. Just as there will always be trolls here. But, I'd like to think that reasonable people can come together to discuss things intelligently. Like Clammyc did over at Redstate some time back. http://www.dailykos.com/.... But, it's not going to happen while the Right is controlling the debate, because they do not want to have intellectual discourse. Gingrich the Georgia historian might claim to want to debate, but Gingrich's Ditto-head national supporters, who would rather be bowing at the altar of Rush Limbaugh, are along for the ride. And, they do not want to listen.
So, that's what I learned last night. I'm a liberal elitist, and you know what, I have a right to be. Because we actually listen to the other side. Because we disagree without tuning out. Because it makes us angry to realize that they are not going to read these diaries. Because we are better than they are -- and we better not forget it.