UBoat,
Made sense to me and it something I have pondered for a number of years, without arriving at any real solution. I look at it as a form of what Hoffer attributed to True Believers. That is to say, that folks take on opinions as the center of their core, regardless of political leaning, meaning that compromise in any form is seen (or felt) as being both self-destructive and destructive for the greater society. People--including me--make jokes about "politicians" and "lawyers" because they have no true center. What we often miss is the role that "lack of center" plays in allowing lawyers to defend anyone (something central to our constitution that we often struggle with) or allowing politicians to compromise and reach agreements (another element absolutely critical to our systems of checks and balances).
I gave a one hour class, 20 times in a week in July on COIN. One of the central issues I hammered was the inherent complexity of COIN and the need to formulate strategy and planning to recognize that complexity. I said 20 times that week, "if someone tells you they have the golden BB or the magic solution for COIN, be very suspicious. Kick the tires and check the oil on the used car you are being sold." Too much of what we (and especially John Q Public) hears is selling cars from both sides of the aisle. Ultimately compromise will most likely take place; unfortunately it leaves John Q alienated and confused because he was ready to buy that car as it was first advertised.
Looked at from another perspective, too much appeals to base instinct in attempt (and it succeeds) to lesson John Q's intellectual appraisal of what is being offered. Writers from both sides of the political divide play this game. Michael Moore comes from the left; Ralph Peters comes from the right. Both come across as believing the world is truly painted the color that only they can see and that makes the hair on the back of my neck bristle.
Best
Tom
Bookmarks