Vive la cognitive dissonance!

I have often lamented that the tone of what passes for political discourse in the U.S. means that we spend our time talking, or rather shouting, past each other. Everybody is so busy yelling that sometimes it feels like no one is listening.

Therefore, when someone whose views I generally disagree with says something that I can agree with, I think the responsible thing to do is acknowledge it. Yes, I'm talking about Bill O'Reilly. Yeah, I was shocked myself.

O'Reilly's thesis in his syndicated article today is that President Bush is vulnerable, but that the radical left may be too angry for the Democratic party to capitalize on that vulnerability, thereby handing the election to the Republicans. [link] Here is O'Reilly in his own words:

There are certainly legitimate questions about how the Bush administration could apparently be so wrong about WMDs and the violent aftermath of the formal war. But Bush can avoid addressing those questions if they are lost among irrational harangues by his opponents.

I hate to say it, but I think O'Reilly is on to something. He's not saying that some anger isn't productive, just that when the left wing gets angry, it brooks no compromise, and it is that tendancy that will turn off swing voters. O'Reilly again:

Bush also realizes that the more the bomb-throwers bellow, the easier it will be for him to stake out "the voice of reason" territory. Thus, he is adopting the Muhammad Ali technique of rope-a-dope. He is laying back, letting the frenzied opposition flail away, knowing it will eventually exhaust itself and collapse in a heap. Most Americans are not ideologues and will soon find the fanatics tiresome.

I don't know that I endorse his view wholeheartedly -- I think that there is a lot of anger out there that needs to be tapped into and directed as a motivational force. Still, anger is like electricity: if you're not careful to direct it and control it, it can be deadly.