A house divided

Conflict and disagreement are at the heart of the democratic experience. The belief that reasonable people can disagree, yet still come together as a nation to strive for a common good, is the cornerstone of our society. Without this understanding, we risk evolving into nothing more than warring clusters of rival interests.\nSure, this notion of everyone being reasonable, fair and intellectually honest in their disagreements might be a bit utopian, but I have been really struck by some of the truly horrible ideas put forth in the past few weeks. People sometimes take cheap shots at each other -- that's human nature. My wife reminds me that I've put on some extra weight every time we get into an argument. The thing is, though, she recognizes it's a cheap shot when she says it and (usually) apologizes for it shortly thereafter. While hoping that people will always be fair might be a bit idealistic, I do not consider it unreasonable to ask that people who disagree at least disagree in good faith.\nLet me give you an example of what I mean. There is a group called the American Friends Service Committee. It's an activist group founded by Quakers in 1917 to oppose U.S. involvement in World War I. It has opposed every military venture the United States has been involved in. In the 1930s, it was one of the few American groups that responded to the plight of the Jews in Germany by trying to help resettle them. It went to India in 1947 to help people displaced by the rioting that followed the Indian/Pakistan partition. It went to the Gaza Strip in 1948 to help Arab refugees. The group was even co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for its humanitarian work. What I'm saying is that this Quaker organization is a serious group that has a long commitment to a pacifistic ideology.\nNow the AFSC is planning a series of candlelight vigils and silent protests to mark the 2,000th American death from the Iraq War. Some conservative pundits, such as Michelle Malkin, have not taken the opportunity presented by this action to discuss why they believe the Iraq War was a meritorious action, however. Instead, they have chosen to attack the action by framing it as, and I quote, "The ghouls of the left -- They support the troops ... by partying over their deaths."\nThis is not just something one finds on the right. Conspiracy theories on the left, such as the one that says the Bush administration knew Sept. 11 was going to happen but thought it would be politically advantageous to let it go, are equally odious and unhelpful. These needless attacks on each other only further cement our differences rather than help us come together to find common purpose. In a time of war in which we now find ourselves, we must at least set aside our animosity to look for common ground. After all, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand"