Hey folks, remember me? I’m trying to keep up with things here but, well, it’s not working so good. Anyway, over the holidays I found myself, as many often do, discussing politics with family and friends. Along the way I discovered that I frequently dislike talking to people on my side.

Now I can hear you all right now, “Why? Do you like arguing?” Well no, it’s not that. I enjoy having a discussion that’s civil, and I really don’t like it when things get heated because more often than not my emotions run faster than my though process and I either say something I would never actually agree with or I start losing my ability to argue my point effectively.

No, the real reason is actually two reasons. The first is petty, but significant: there is nothing as downright annoying as talking with someone who agrees with you for all the wrong reasons. I am an anti-war, atheist, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay-marriage, “damn I want Clinton back” liberal, but every time I got in a discussion about politics and had to deal with “yeah Bush is an idiot, I mean who chokes on a pretzel??” I start reconsidering my blue brethren.

I’ve always been a big proponent of “keep your outspokenness proportional to your knowledge”. I’m not an economist. Any economical comments I make come from looking at actions and comparing them to the effects of such actions in other situations. As such, I don’t offer deep discussions on the value of the dollar the current (and worrying) rise of the euro.

One of my goals with this blog was to prove that liberals aren’t all idiots who hate Bush for stupid reasons and who say things like “make love, not war”, but then I get into a discussion and suddenly there’s one now. I do what I can to steer the conversation to more substantial matters, but more often than not I find myself shaking myself and hoping that when I talk to a conservative this isn’t how he sees me.

The second reason follows suit: conversations with people I agree with accomplish very little. Now I do have a number of friends who know more than me, and talking with them is always a treat because I find out new reasons to affirm my knowledge, but that just isn’t enough for me.

I’ve also always been of the belief that if you can only sustain your beliefs by avoiding everyone who disagrees (I’m looking at you, religion), then you don’t really believe them, you just don’t want to accept what you inherently know is true. This also applies to situations where you have to lie, distort the truth, or baselessly attack your opponent in order to make your case.

So really the only way to know you’re right is to stack your beliefs up against someone on the other side. If I get into a discussion with someone who’s pro-life, I’m going to find out whether or not everything I base my opinion on is right. Alternately, I find out what I never thought of. I can’t possibly list all the articles on this site that occurred because I got into an argument with someone and was looking for either support myself or dispute the other guy.

Progress comes from conflict, and my biggest jolts of creativity came from talking with someone for the war, who believes in the War on Christmas, or thinks gays shouldn’t marry. How many times have I written an article purely debunking something someone else has said? On O’Reilly alone… yeesh.

Talking with people on your side makes you lazy. It’s the reason I don’t just sit around reading liberal blogs for all my news (not that you should stop reading this one, a-heh heh heh). It’s why O’Reilly and Hannity are popular. Not because they are any good as journalists, but because by berating the opposition the viewers get the message that the host is right, and more importantly the other side is wrong.

Honestly I’m occasionally tempted to simply peruse right-ward blogs and news sites for the sole purpose of material to shoot down. It makes for much more educational and downright entertaining reading than “hey, John from AmericaBlog says this, and I agree!”

What do you think?