In several posts, I've slipped in criticism of the Left for being "insensitive" toward the Right. Enough commenters took me to task that I suspect this topic is worth its own thread.

Part of the background of my accusations against at least some people on the Left for being degrading/disrespectful against the right is the long history of the Left calling the right "crazy" for advocating nuclear stockpiling and "racist" for, well, being racist. To the Left, these seem like factual descriptions. Consider that they are both false characterizations but also are contributing to and even worsening the problems these people on the Left would like to see solved.

I at one time agreed that the acceleration of the nuclear war preparations was sheer madness--Dr. Strangelove was one of my favorite movies. But then I started reading the work of James Blight, who is now in the Watson Institute of Brown Univ. He was first educated as a psychologist and then became a widely respected expert in international relations. At the core of his work is his psychological idea that "realistic empathy" is fundamental to international relations. Put simply, he advocates getting to know the positions and motivations of world leaders, not in a psychotherapeutic sense but in lay terms. He believes that if you want to solve problems, then you must be exquisitely sensitive to the people you want to influence. Demeaning comments--even subtle ones--are the most powerful means for worsening relations and making problem solving impossible. Armed with those principles, Blight is the one of the few academics and the only psychologist who has ever been allowed to conduct extensive interviews with world leaders, including Gromyko, Castro, Rusk, MacNamara, and more. Accordingly, Blight and a few other academics orchestrated a version of his critical oral history for ex-Iranian president, Bill Clinton, and many others who hope to expose missed opportunities in Iran-America relations.

As to my the label, "crazy," Blight counters with detailed accounts of the influences that propelled leaders into the arms race. His account reveals that the leaders are human beings faced with impossible situations and coming to more and less reasonable conclusions. The word "crazy" just doesn't wash, and it makes sense that calling, for instance, Reagan, "crazy," which is what most academic psychologists studying nuclear war did, only alienates.

SIt is arguable that a significant problem in race relations is the Left's reverse degradation of white people for being racist. While it's true that they are, the venom and arrogance of that pronouncement did drive white people further out of the mainstream. They were judged for being judgmental, and they got the self-contradiction in that process.

Likewise, I think the current political debate is, as many have complained, rife with demeaning comments. Obama is being trashed from the Left and the Right. It is incredibly tempting to rant; I've done it a fair amount. And it can be difficult to distinguish between a fair appraisal and a demeaning expression. But I think Obama is spot on when he argues that we need to disagree without being disagreeable. I just don't think he appreciates how incredibly difficult it can be to even know when you're being disagreeable, or insensitive.