I also agree with you about rational deliberation as being satisfying. Yannis Stavrakakis has criticized Habermas because his model of communication is “passionless.” And the idea is that we cannot have a rational-but-passionless democracy, because we, human beings, don’t find passionless rationality very satisfyuing at all, and so we cant be invested in this sort of democratic process. But I agree with you: I also think that deliberative communication in itself can be passionate and fulfilling. Danton comes to mind

This is not the right channel to say this,, but good to hear from you

She espouses views as ridiculous and wrong (just plain not true) as the Peruvian vixen. The earth is less than 6,000 years old, Obama is a socialist and a Nazi —- A NAZI— and she is proudly ignorant. She is real and charitable because she insists on bringing her mentally handicapped baby everywhere and fights for the rights of the mentally handicapped (I know, this conviction of hers’ can be ridiculed all night long— after all, she is mentally handicapped). Anyone who exposes her ignorance is an elitist.

When she was brought on the scene by a mad man desperate to win, I was terrified. I lost sleep over the thought of her running the world— McCain dies, Palin runs the country. What threw me even further was how many women I met who went from supporting Hillary to supporting Palin, because both were women. A move more desperate and cynical move than McCain’s choice of Palin as running mate.

Hillary obviously occupies the other slot open to women in a puritanical society— the desexualized smart woman. Sexually neutered, so much so that she is often called a lesbian— and then from there an opportunistic lesbian who knows that she can only have political power if she hides her true sexual leanings.

In a way, what we see here, from the Palins and the Hillarys is a very real struggle over how to handle women in the public space.

Now to jump cut —-the question of rational debate. Impossible with an electorate made of Palins. They simply do not consider issues, facts, real political reality, they have created an alternate universe of pre (or post)-rational conviction. They work on the basest level, you are right— but they work. And they may be junk food, but more than 51% of Americans persist on junk food.

The Hillarys exist— there IS rational and intelligent debate all over the internet. Salon, Politico, Daily Kos, this blog— to name just a few. And these blogs (along with Colbert and Stewart) give me hope. But they are not junk food— they are home made meals and an acquired taste. You have to like the taste of thinking, of being challenged, of genuine problems and you have to like it enough to seek it out.

Unlike junk food, or a quick fix of any sort, the pleasure is less intense at first, but it lasts longer and when it is really good rational debate it is far more satisfying— and I mean that word “satisfying” seriously— because to be satisfied is to have sated (at least in part) some of our baser instincts —- and rational debate, real rational debate, has traces and/or overloads of passion.

Just some thoughts—

The Habermasian ideal of rational deliberation is just that, ideal. How is it decided whose arguments are rational and whose are not? This runs the risk of excluding those with whom we simply don’t agree.