The question is why it is so difficult for so many politically engaged folks to argue rationally. Part of it may be that they don't know how, or maybe they do know, but don't care enough to be bothered. Long ago, I served a term as a philosophy prof (assistant), and noted how difficult it was to get students interested in this activity. I guess it's just more exciting to sling insults. Jon Johanning
--------
Rational argument and facts don't motivate people. Passion and rhetoric delivered in a style they like or admire motivates people.
But that doesn't mean that rationalism and facts don't have their uses. Once you get down to the institutional mechanisms of change, then you need the facts and the logical means to effect the changes.
Rhetoric says screw the rich, we've had enough of this shit. Facts and logic are useful when it comes time to accomplish that.
So, there is a disconnect between getting support for change, and effecting change. The problem that I see is the left and progressives in general understand a fair amount about the means to effect change, and have a long list of things to do. What they don't seem to understand or have are the rhetorical arts to motivate people. I suspect the reason is that they (we) are too focused on analyzing and figuring out the methods for change. While these matter later, they don't matter in the `political' arts of getting there.
Chuck Grimes