I found this interesting and thought provoking. YMMV https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...a-cultural-divide-red-state-blue-state-228111
TL, but I read it anyway. He almost lost me where he states he's a lib NY'er. Nice synopsis- thru a liberals- career college educators standpoint. No, nope lop sided at all I tell ya. He describes his over privileged, mostly white, entitled students well.
Overall what he said makes sense. Got professor preachy at the end but meh, the message overall is good. People do need to listen and I totally agree that people aren't remotely as far apart as they think they are or as the media and politicians tell them they are.
I had to laugh at this, although it isn't really funny. But I’ve also met almost no one who didn’t think abortion presents a significant ethical quandary. When I ask Professor Sandel how he’s been changed by the experience of teaching ethics, abortion is what comes to his mind. “I came to think that it’s legitimate for those who have strong religious convictions, for example about the moral status of the developing fetus—it’s legitimate for those views to be introduced into public debate,” he tells me. “They should be debated, they need to be defended, they should be open to criticism, but they are appropriate in public debate.” I’m pro-choice, as Sandel is, but I’ve come to believe the same thing. I’ve also come to believe that if liberals started from the premise that the pro-life position is a legitimate argument that comes from love not hate, the tenor of the conversation about choice would be quite different.
It's amazing anyone would think that Americans with strong religious convictions should be excluded from a public debate that's rooted in morality. Or from any debate for that matter.
