I have suggested that we should make concessions to those with whom we might disagree, and that "winning" an argument about policy is often achieved by recognizing the meritorious aspects of the arguments made by those with which we ultimately disagree. The same edition of The Wall Street Journal that had the article that served as the basis for my discussion on that subject also contained an article about the War in Vietnam. That article, "Echoes of Vietnam, 50 Years Later," tried to make the case that the Vietnam War was a "war worth fighting."
Just to make my position clear, I don't agree. Killing people (by the millions) to achieve some political goal - which is what this nation did in Vietnam - is where I draw the line on "making concessions."
When the issue is arguments about what we should do, "concessions" can often be helpful. Killing people is something different.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!