Reply #105: I think you're right, and my take on it is that it is a matter of [View All]

[RaleighNCDUer]

education. That is, progressives take their positions because they are informed on the issues, while cons take their stands based of a pre-packaged 'moral' stance, and information be damned.

The problem with that is the cons can accept their proper stance by just being told what it is. Progressives base their stance on being educated and well-informed. But in this information-saturated world, it is difficult to be really well informed about more than a couple things. For instance, there are those who are incensed about violations of constitutional law being committed by the cons -- they know the ins and outs of constitutional law, but have a layman's knowledge, at best, of the effects of environmental degradation. They may be able to relate to surface arguments, and may be able to understand facets of environmental law, but they are hesitant to take a strong stand because it is not their field. Likewise, the environmentalist may be well versed on the ramifications of global warming or vanishing aquifers, but not know Marbury from Madison. Therefore, there is a wall between the pros who argue constitutional law and those who argue environmental preservation and protection, despite both being under attack by the same enemy.

And I admit, I don't know how to address that.