Leonard Pitts, half correct

Leonard Pitts is a syndicated columnist for the Miami Herald. He likes the President. He has written a lot about how unfair he thinks the criticisms of the President are. In a recent column he made a point about the supposed cocoon that conservatives live in. He thought it a bit silly that the son of Phyllis Schlafly (a voice from the past who wrote "A Choice Not and Echo" in the 1964 Goldwater campaign) who is trying to start Conservapedia as a conservative option to Wickipedia. He thought that was a silly idea. So do I. One of the powers of Wickipedia is that for the most part it corrects itself. So when some loon from the left puts in that some conservative once fed on infant children, someone pretty soon corrects it. He then goes on to make a point which I think is not correct. He states that Schlafly

" is part of an ongoing crusade to delegitimize any institution, any information source, any inconvenient fact that contradicts conservative beliefs. Rather than trust those beliefs to stand or fall in the free market of ideas, some conservatives now apply a kind of intellectual protectionism. So now you have your conservative newspaper, your conservative radio station, your conservative university, your conservative ``facts'' and, apparently, your conservative God, and you may build yourself a conservative life in a conservative bubble where you need never contend with ideas that challenge, contradict -- or refine -- your own."

His point being that conservatives are especially susceptible to being part of a protected environment which protects their beliefs from almost any outside alternative. I think his point is valid but does not go far enough. Our political system is based on the exchange of ideas. But we have lapsed into two trends I believe are particularly disturbing. First, we simply don't engage in seeking out those other sources or alternative views. I do not particularly care what the son of Phyllis Schlafly or even the son of Ron Dellums thinks. But I have tried diligently to understand what all the hub-bub is about on the health care debates. I think the general direction of the President's proposals are in the wrong direction, just as I did for the last President's direction on K-12 education. But I don't believe that either is the devil or not as much an American as I.

And that is the second issue, which I think Pitts seems to do often. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean that I think they are immoral or criminal or related to some other kind of evil plot that will end Western Civilization as we know it. The discussion in the public sector should stick to ideas and leave the food fights to the WWE. Where I think Pitts is especially wrong is in the fact that I think we have too many bubbles and many on the left - who only see NPR or CNN, read the Times (of whichever city), and live in a liberal enclave are any the less bubbled up than the right. Indeed, I think there is a far greater chance that bubbles happen more to those on the left than on the right. Is politically correct speech a recognition of the power of the right?