The foundation of a democratic republic — where the people allegedly have the final say in their own governance — is the ability to argue. That is how you make public-policy decisions. You present evidence, apply it to the rules and norms, consider precedent, and try to persuade a majority. You cannot have anything like a democracy — I know we are not technically a democracy; go with me — unless people in your society can argue. The alternative to argument is force, and force rather undermines the whole democracy thing.

Here is the problem. We don't have arguments anymore, at least not often enough or in the right way. I used to argue for a living. I argue a lot less now, and tell people things a lot more. You do not get much value out of arguing most of the time these days, and that is sad. To be a citizen and participate in a free society, you must know how to make an argument. You also must know how to listen, weigh it, and use judgment. Most of us cannot do that anymore. Look around.

The establishment doesn't want you to argue, because if you did, you might notice that much of what it is selling is bad. So, you get regime media that does everything it can to make it impossible to argue against the status quo. That is why you see panels where everybody has the same viewpoint, and the only variation is the particular way each panelist hates Donald Trump and you. The collapse of objectivity in ordinary journalism is not a style problem. Objectivity means presenting the other side. They don’t want to have an argument; if normal people hear a real argument, they might not do what the establishment wants.

There are still venues for arguments in normal life. Thanksgiving dinner. Facebook. Sitting around drinking when somebody says that Talarico fellow sure seems like a good Christian, totally normal, and they would let him babysit their son. You may be called on to argue. The first question is whether you should.

I only make arguments for money now. It used to be fun — a mental........

© Townhall