Although my classmates had already labeled one of our speakers as "one of those right-wing property rights guys", I attempted to keep an open mind about the subject.

It was a discussion/debate on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the other speaker was one of the drafters of the ESA (a "liberal", I suppose.) Both positions made a good deal of sense to me.

The conservative basically said: yes, we need to protect endangered species, but at what cost to human beings? Why do we protect some microscopic organism by taking "water out of the mouths" of the good people of Albequerque ("children", he said with emphasis)? We need a balance. We need to realize that people are here to stay and we will impact the environment.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The liberal basically said: it's not just the spotted owl or the microorganism that is at stake, we're talking about an eco-system. It's like being the librarian of the world's only library, with only one copy of each book. Do we let someone destroy a book as firewood? When we do that, we don't even know the questions to ask, much less the answers these species provide. It could be a cure for cancer.

Sure, that seems pretty important too.

One audience member criticized the conservative for basically being "man-centered." That is, that he was only concerned about the needs of human beings, without regard to the earth as a place for all species, and humans didn't have the right to just trample over them.

However, it seemed to me that the liberal was also man-centered... his arguments were about how the species could prove to lead to discoveries unimaginable by us at this time... and for what purpose? To serve man's needs, including finding a cure for man's cancer.

So I came away with no clear answers about the debate. However, I was impressed with the truth of the adage, "It's not what you say, but how you say it."

Unfortunately, the conservative's arguments were poorly presented. He came off (and I was probably the most sympathetic to him in that room) as rather a fool at times. He got a little too excited and used "freakin" (which can't be a good sign.) He was rather defensive at times, though there were plenty of liberals who were rather unreceptive (everything from the raised-eyebrows to the time someone actually burst out laughing while he was talking, to my professor - trying to be kind, I think - presenting a question that he said would permit the conservative to "rehabilitate" himself - ouch.)

The liberal, on the other hand, was fairly cool and collected, and came off as wise and learned. He presented his views much more reasonably. He was a little more diplomatic, but then again he had the bias for him before he even opened his mouth (plus he spoke after the conservative.) He didn't do a good job of hiding his own views about the "Bushies" or "this Administration". And he didn't really have solid answers either, why the resources should be allocated to "endangered" or nearly-endangered species when there isn't clear evidence that it's effective. He may have said something like, but we need to do something. Not so persuasive.

The conservative seems to stand for those that probably perpetuate the rather ugly stereotypes about the Religious Right and the social/civil conservatives. They're dogmatic, stupid, and they've got sharp teeth. Unfortunately, Christians tend to get lumped in with them. We're not sophisticated, we're foolish, we're intolerant, and so forth.

I contrast the conservative with Christians I know, say some of those at IJM or an articulate classmate who has conservative political views, who are "winsome". Though perhaps they aren't able to change the other side's point of view, they may win their grudging and reluctant admiration for at least being consistent, firm (without being dogmatic or strident) and maybe even likable.