Hat tip to magpie
John Scalzi brings us an example of how a lot of wisdom can be packed into a few words. Since there are so few words you really should go over and read the entire thing. In short, he says we make a mistake when we look at US politics in terms of conservative VS liberal. The real divide is rationalists VS irrationalist. If you look around you will see there are rational conservatives and yes, irrational liberals. Much to our dismay the person currently residing in the White House and many of those surrounding him fall into the irrationalist camp.
The real tragedy of politics today is not that we have a conservative in the White House, but that we have an irrationalist there -- someone whose policy positions can't be seen as divorced from reality, if only because that would imply they had ever been based there at all. Bush's irrationalist tendencies have fundamentally little to do with his conservative tendencies, which is to say that the former are not spawned from the latter.Scalzi says that although he may disagree with them he is more comfortable with rational conservatives than irrational liberals he may agree with. I have found this to be true as well. It is easier for me to read a critique of George W. Bush from a libertarian at LewRockwell.com than from a liberal at DKos.
John Scalzi leaves us with this sound advice.
Irrational politics are dangerous; I don't need to recount my general litany of complaints about the Bush administration's policies to make that point. Rational conservatives should be aware that the irrational conservatives are not your friends; rational liberals, the same (rational moderates, rest easy; for some unfathomable reason, there don't seem to be very many irrational moderates). Indeed, the rational all along the political spectrum should realize they have far more common cause with other rationalists, in terms of effective governing, than they do with the irrationalists who ostensibly share their politics.There is more and it's short so go read the entire post.