Bear in mind that I have no idea what the phrase "agree with the other side" is supposed to mean.
I find that the words "agree" and "disagree" are often misused and misunderstood in political discussions, especially in the context of claims-of-fairness vs. accusations-of-bias. As much as I'd love to have that conversation about language, that's really not what I'm here for today. Accordingly let's just stipulate for now that the phrase "agree with the other side" means, in general, to accept and express ideas, opinions, beliefs, positions, preferences, characterizations, criticisms, evaluations and/or judgments that come from or may be expected to come from, or that are or may be expected to be aligned with, favorable to, or accepted and expressed by, the cohort or any particular member of, representative of, or spokesperson for the cohort that is generally identified and/or affiliated with whichever major political party with which one does not generally identify and/or affiliate oneself.
Whew. Now that we've got that out of the way.....
I've said and written repeatedly that practically everyone I know, of every possible political persuasion, orientation or affiliation, from far-right-wing-Republicans to far-left-wing-Democrats and everyone, everything, everywhere in-between, describes him- or herself as "moderate," "centrist," "neutral," "non-partisan," "fair," "objective," equally contemptuous of "both sides," and so forth, even though everything else they say plainly and obviously carries water for one "side" and not the other. What I'm here to discuss today is a related, similar phenomenon, viz., those who don't necessarily disclaim their own affiliation or congratulate themselves for being completely unaffiliated and unbiased, but instead congratulate themselves for their own willingness and capacity to "agree with the other side" while criticizing others for their purported unwillingness and/or failure to do the same.
At some point, I think, there has to be a discussion about the virtues of being completely neutral and unbiased, and of "agreeing with the other side" for its own sake, beyond the standard complaints about the ubiquitous "both sides do it" memes in the so-called "news" media. I'm wondering why people at large in both categories consider themselves to be so much more virtuous than everyone else; why they congratulate and praise themselves for their supposed lack of any bias whatsoever, for their self-professed willingness to "agree with the other side," or for anecdotal instances when they did "agree with the other side." Why is it better to occasionally or anecdotally "agree with the other side" than to essentially never do so? Why is it better to be completely neutral and unbiased than to be on one "side" or the other? (I'm not saying it isn't; I just want to understand why people think it is.)
I bring this up because I had a somewhat distressing conversation with one of my "liberal" friends yesterday. We agree about most things in the political realm, but one thing we don't agree on is the necessity and virtue of "agreeing with the other side."
The conversation was about the NYPD "protest," viz., turning their backs on Mayor DeBlasio during his speech at the funeral of one of the murdered officers. My friend was basically taking Rudy Giuliani's position on this issue, viz., that DeBlasio was wrong for (1) calling the police racists, and (2) doing so while having been seen with Al Sharpton. Paraphrasing, "If you're the mayor," said my friend, "and the police work for you, you don't go on TV and call your employees racists." And further, my friend pointed out, "He marched next to Al Sharpton, who has made a career out of falsely accusing white people of racism and racially-motivated wrongdoing."
You can probably imagine how this conversation proceeded, so I won't try to recap or transcribe the whole thing, and there's probably no need to rebut my friend's remarks in the Comments section. Suffice to say that my rebuttals gradually made him angrier and angrier, with repeated accusations that I was "not listening," until he furiously stormed out of the room yelling, "You know, you're just as bad as Republicans!! You just can't admit that your guy is wrong!!"
For the record, DeBlasio is not "my guy;" I don't live in New York anymore and didn't live in the City when he was elected, so I didn't vote for him and don't care all that much about him, and I'm no fan of Reverend Al. But the point is that DeBlasio is a Democrat, and as a "liberal"/Democratic partisan he's the one (I guess) I'm supposed to be defending from criticism, and not criticizing for being "wrong." Since I did what I would be expected to do, given the Color War team that I'm on, instead of "agree with the other side" like my friend did, I am therefore "just as bad as" anyone on the other Color War team.
Again, I don't want to have the DeBlasio/Giuliani/NYPD debate here; that's not what this is about. What I'm trying to figure out is why my friend, and so many others like him, put such a premium on "agreeing with the other side." This is not the first time this has come up between the two of us; he has in the past fiercely defended the "other side" when I've criticized certain behaviors I've observed therein, and fiercely admonished me to be more respectful of the "other side" and, of course, more willing to "agree with" them. He stopped listening to what used to be our mutual favorite "liberal" radio show, because the host "just became too partisan," i.e., "never agreed with the other side." And he has repeatedly parlayed discussions like this into character judgments, concluding each time that I am "just as bad" as the Hannitys and Coulters and Breitbart trolls of the world, because I am supposedly not willing, or not sufficiently willing, to "agree with the other side."
Why do I owe "the other side" my "agreement" with any of their ideas, opinions, beliefs, positions, preferences, characterizations, criticisms, evaluations and/or judgments? Why do I owe my friend any "agreement with the other side"?
Why, if I "disagree" with any particular one of the ideas, opinions, beliefs, positions, preferences, characterizations, criticisms, evaluations and/or judgments being accepted and expressed by the "other side," and/or find it unreasonable and/or wrong, and can explain why, am I nonetheless required to "agree with" it or to consider "agreeing with" it? Is there any other way to demonstrate that I have fairly and honestly considered it, besides "agreeing with" it? Why does the fact that I don't "agree with" it, without more, indicate that I am categorically unwilling or incapable of "agreeing with the other side"?
In other words, why should I "agree with the other side" when I don't?
Why does an idea, opinion, belief, position, preference, characterization, criticism, evaluation and/or judgment that "agrees with the other side" have more validity and carry more weight than one that doesn't?
Why is a person's willingness, ability or inclination to "agree with the other side," by itself, an appropriate measure of that person's intelligence, character, judgment or integrity?
It occurs to me that I am on the "side" that I'm on for a reason. I didn't just pick a "side" and decide to "agree with" that "side" all the time, on everything, no matter what. I'm a liberal (i.e., somewhere on the political left) for a reason; I vote Democratic for a reason. For lots of reasons, actually. I try to evaluate things fairly, honestly and discretely, and I'm not immune to or devoid of biases. If I don't "agree with the other side," it's because I don't agree with the other side. (If I do, it's because I do.) Why should I "agree with the other side" just for the sake of "agreeing with the other side"? Why do I even have to demonstrate the capacity or the willingness to "agree with the other side"? What does that prove?
I'm repeating myself now. I think the point that I'm trying to make is that "agreeing with the other side" seems, to some people, to have become an end in itself; a cart being constantly placed before the horse. Whenever someone accuses me of being unable or unwilling to ever "agree with the other side" they never tell me exactly what it is I'm supposed to "agree with," let alone give me a reason. They just want me to, and think I should, occasionally "agree with the other side" or be more willing to "agree with the other side."
Why?
