The absence of a liberal core

Julie Ponzi makes an interesting couple of points in this post.

In order to engage in a truly serious discussion you must have a strong point of agreement. The best debates are always between people who, basically, agree. That’s why the intramural sparring among conservatives can be so interesting. Granted, it is sometimes maddening and self-defeating, but it is always interesting and usually important. But the fighting between liberals almost always seems unhinged. They are always searching for their "core." When you have to look for it, you don’t have one. When everything goes it seems nothing makes any sense. It doesn’t seem serious, focused, or relevant.

First, I never thought before about her claim that a point of agreement is necessary to have a good discussion. Of course, she is right. How can we argue about what is the best course of action or policy, if we can't even agree on how to define what is best or whether good, better or best are even relevant concepts.

Second, is her observation about the absence of a liberal core. And I think she is right. If everything is relative and there is no "truth", everything is good. And so is nothing. Whatever.

Next time you read about Pelosi and company trying once again to come up with some kind of message and agenda for the fall elections, remember Ponzi's point.