In my experience, liberals as well as conservatives have generated "buzz" from hot-button, emotional issues. My conservative friends make precisely the same kind of accusation about the motives and tactics of their opponents as do my liberal friends--they just point to different anecdotes and different examples. I think that numerous contributers to this particular discussion have indulged in various kinds of rhetorical fallacies, including sweeping generalizations, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. This kind of rhetoric is incompatible with civil, not to mention civic discourse. It does, however, mirror and mimic the rhetoric of much of the Virginian public sphere prevalent today. Who can blame the people who argue irresponsibly here, given that they are simply replicating the dubious strategies of public discourse modelled in so many other places in Virginia? It seems to me that in Virginia, a lot of what passes for public political discourse consists of groups of likeminded people complaining to folk who are in fundamental agreement with them about what wicked, mean-spirited people those are who disagree. Whether its liberal bloggers talking to other liberal bloggers, or conservatives complaining on talk radio to other conservatives, the function of the conversation is to firm up boundaries, and to demonize enemies, rather than to advance any kind of civic compromise. Isn't this the kind of thing that the Founders talked about, when they worried about the evils of faction? Would anyone now be willing to defend Madison's optimistic diagnosis for the ills of faction that he defended in Federalist 10 and 51? The conservative University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter has analyzed the "culture wars" of the 1980s and 1990s in two superb books: Before the Shooting Begins (1994) and Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (1991). Taken together, they remain hair-raising analyses of the importance of sustaining a civil civic discourse. As Hunter notes, a necessary precondition for civil violence is the widespread willingness of one faction to demonize those thom they ascribe as "other." When we walk into a conversation expecting that those liberal (or conservative) "lying liars" will once again be seeking opportunities to distort the truth in favor of their illegitimate and wicked agendas, it is very hard to have any sort of constructive discourse. There has been way too much demonization going on in this conversation. I have suggested in an earlier post that the self-righteousness inherent in that kind of conversation is, by the standards of reformed Christianity, deeply suspect. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have posted on this topic, but I do question the prudence of much of their rhetoric. The civic disfunction that our country is currently undergoing should be disturbing to everyone on this list-serv. What possible good can come of bringing that disfunction to this conversation? All best, Kevin Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. Department of History James Madison University To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html