Nothing in Common

Have you ever been in the middle of a conversation with someone, when suddenly you realize that the person you are talking to has such a radically different viewpoint from yours that you don’t even know where to begin finding common ground? And such a disconnect is almost always concerning some subject where it is not so simple that you can say “Ok, well if that’s so, please explain this thing that doesn’t fit with your idea.” You may feel some stirring of disbelief that your companion feels that way, a moment of shock where you wonder if it is even worth continuing to talk about the issue at hand. You struggle for a way to express what is — to you anyway — the obvious.

But no, this is like two young adults arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg, with one shouting about how clearly eggs evolved before chickens did because after all dinosaurs laid eggs, with the other insisting with equal fervor that God created all creatures including the chicken that laid the first egg. If one could reasonably prove the other wrong, it would have already happened. Each will talk about how the other’s theory is unproven, and the other will reply, and each will find flaws — real or imagined — in the other’s reasoning. As Tim Iacono said about a completely unrelated issue, “It’s easy to ignore [something] when it goes contrary to everything you want to believe, so that’s what we did.” The only possible end to this argument is stalemate, regardless of the merits or flaws of either position.

Today I offer two examples: one from the Halls of Academia and one from the core of Neo-Conservatism.

First, thanks to Ken DeRosa at D-Ed Reckoning for pointing out this item called “Read It and Weep: Why does Congress hate the one part of No Child Left Behind that works?” This lengthy but excellent article details the ongoing philosophical battle between two opposing reading pedagogy methods, “whole language” and “phonics.” One works for almost all kids, one only works for some kids (the ones whom, I personally suspect, are actually being taught with the other method at home by Mom and Dad), but to listen to the dueling research papers, you’d be hard pressed to tell which is which. Systems that stress phonics and comprehension and building new skills on a foundation of recently learned skills work. The evidence is strong enough that part of No Child Left Behind will give schools money to implement such systems, and schools that have taken the money have watched their test scores soar, with teachers and administrators exclaiming things like “We could see immediate results,” and “It’s exciting to be successful.”

But you’d never know that to listen to the whole language proponents. They deride the thing that actually works as “drill and kill,” and “cutting learning up into itty-bitty pieces,” and even “the factory model.” They claim to have research that says their system works as well, but every time someone knowledgeable digs into the research they find flaws. No amount of research on the other side will ever convince them that simply exposing kids to the written word will not teach them to read by some sort of literary osmosis. The losers in this war are of course the kids, many of whom never become good readers, and many of whom end up spending time with expensive tutoring and Kumon to learn what their first grade teacher should have taught them in the first place.

My other example is far more horrifying. A British journalist went on the National Review’s annual cruise. She listened attentively to people who were absolutely certain that Muslims were “breeding” and taking over Europe, anti-war liberals want nothing more than to demoralize America and thus should be executed for treason, Vietnam was only a failure because of the “Left”, there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq but they were moved to Syria, all non-whites are inferior so any discrimination they are victim to is deserved, Rumsfeld and Pinochet were both heroes, and of course the Middle East would run so much better if enlightened conservative Republicans controlled it (for the benefit of those poor inferior and Muslim non-whites currently there of course). Don’t miss page two, where Robert Bork is heard saying “The coverage of this war is unbelievable. Even Fox News is unbelievable. You’d think we’re the only ones dying. Enemy casualties aren’t covered. We’re doing an excellent job killing them.” Oh and scroll down for Norman Podhoretz on why things in Iraq are great and that the invasion of Iran can’t come soon enough.

These views, clearly held in sincerity by some, are foreign to my reality. People like these are why I look like a progressive leftist freak, when in fact I am moderate and my views generally in line with Joe and Jane Average — assuming of course that Joe and Jane have actually thought about the issues and not just gotten the soundbites from highly biased sources. In the places where I am a little more progressive, I can explain my views such that Joe and Jane at least know why I feel as I do even if they do not agree.

Is there any reasoning with these radical Neo-Con points of view? Any common ground? Are these views common, or just peculiar to the sort of hyper-conservative who has both the money and desire to go on a cruise with people like William Buckley?

In closing, Paul Krugman and Dan Agin and Robert Weissman on health care, particularly the “universal” kind; Cheney vs. Rice on Iran, and as Joe Gandelman points out, the article says the President and Vice President “did not trust any potential successors in the White House” and clearly believe they are the only ones who can safeguard America. Indeed, whither the middle ground?