He spoke clearly and assuredly, with a soft authority and a dry humor. He paused midsentence to reflect on what he was saying, what he was going to say and then deliver his points without flair or trite rhetoric.

He is the philosopher’s pundit, when so many other commentators rely on shock value and slogans. This is not meant to be a love story to George Will, but rather a reflection on what lessons we may take from his lecture.

As Will agreed during his question and answer session, American’s have lost their sense of civility when it comes to politics. Emotion has become too wrapped up in the issue. Arguments become personal attacks, ideological differences become personal grudges and political opponents become personal enemies.

Because of this personalization of politics, people no longer listen; it has turned into an argument rather than a discussion. We no longer want to share information or enjoy intelligent conversation.

Instead, we want to win.

While this may appear unimportant at first, it is a symptom of a dangerous problem; Americans believe that they have a monopoly on being right, even when discussing things with each other.

Consider Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Al Franken. These pundits rely on a self-described confrontational style, engaging in personal feuds.

Their discussions usually devolve into shouting matches where anything close to intelligent discussion is hard to find.

These events also tend to use catch phrases, defining themselves as either left or right and categorizing each other as either fascists, cowards, bigots or non-Americans. Our public discourse has become so overtly confrontational that, Sunday talk shows look like shouting matches rather than what they are meant to be, an open forum for an exchange of ideas.

Will is above it. He makes well-informed, insightful comments while others use the shock and awe method of debate. Others choose to incite a reaction, but Will uses insight to encourage his audience to reconsider our positions. His opinions are not reactionary.

What lessons can be taken from this? First, we must no longer rely on others to provide us with the basis for our opinions. While it may be arduous, an opinion is only as good as the information backing it up. If our understanding on a subject is only superficial, what good is that opinion?

Second, we must re-learn the grade school wisdom that everyone has something of value to say. We must stop trying to argue and win, but talk and learn from each other. No one has a monopoly on the facts, nor exclusive rights to the correct point of view.

We must realize that despite our willingness to attempt to foster democracy and plurality in developing nations, we are losing it at home. Plurality is quickly described as the acceptance of different viewpoints, or colloquially, everyone has a point.

Losing our sense of plurality means losing our ability to get along, to have meaningful conversation without everything devolving into a shouting match.

The idea of plurality is the basis for everything our political system is based upon. Without it, diversity loses all meaning and effectiveness.

Staff: - 09/26/07