May 15, 2025
In 2010, liberal political commentator Mark Shields and conservative political commentator David Brooks squared off in the Springfield Public Forum’s 70th season. However, if you were looking for a WWE, Texas-style cage death match where two people enter and only one leaves, you would have been sorely disappointed. This was 2010, after all, which seems like light years away. As it turned out, they had a civil exchange of ideas, and agreed on many of the subjects they covered. How quaint? This was not the “60 Minutes” Point-Counterpoint, bare knuckles segment featuring news commentators Shana Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick, who were themselves parodied on SNL by Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd.
They agreed that the United States will not begin to solve its political problems until “the me generation becomes the we generation.” Shields said that the old JFK line “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country “ was not in vogue. Brooks said Democrats lost the mid-terms because Barack Obama prioritized a national healthcare bill over jobs creation. In all, they debated the issues of the day from their respective points of view. They agreed on some, and disagreed on the others, but they didn’t attempt to villify or debase each other.
Recently, I enjoyed a cocktail with an old and dear friend. He had his Old-Fashioned and I had my whiskey. He would probably describe himself as a center right Republican, I would describe myself as a center left Democrat. Whether these are accurate descriptions or not is a discussion for another time. We agreed that there were still a lot of things we could agree on, and that Donald Trump was not the answer to any of our concerns.
We agreed that no one is for abortion. Because you are not “pro-life” doesn’t mean you are anti-life or pro death. Abortion is the unfortunate resolution to a very difficult situation. We both supported a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions with information provided by her family, her doctor, and her faith.
We agreed that transgender athletes pose some very difficult issues for high school, college and professional athletics. Neither one of us was comfortable with the current situation. However, we also agreed that it did not rise to the level of a national emergency where the President of the United States has to weigh in for what can only be described as nefarious purposes. These athletes do not deserve to be demonized. The Governor of Maine does not need to be threatened. The U.S. military does not need to be dragged in. There are more humane ways of dealing with people struggling with sexual identity.
We agreed that one of the biggest dangers facing Christianity is Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is a form of religious nationalism that focuses on promoting Christian views in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political, cultural, and social life. Christian Nationalism prioritizes the welfare of its adherents over the welfare of all. JD Vance recently claimed that the teachings of the Catholic Church allow you to ignore the plights of people the farther away they are from your sphere of influence. Fortunately, Pope Leo XIV disagrees.
We also agreed that no one is for illegal immigration. This is a canard promoted by MAGA Republicans to claim that Democrats are soft on immigration. What differentiates the parties is how to solve the problem. People can agree that illegal immigration is an important issue that needs to be dealt with, but can have honest disagreements as to how to solve the problem.
Similarly, we agreed that serious people cannot dispute the fact that climate change is a scientifically-proven fact. However, we also agreed that serious people can have serious and genuine disagreements about what to do about it. Some people may favor mitigation, some people may favor reparations, some people may favor renewable alternatives, and some people may favor “drill, baby, drill.”
Lastly, we would both most-likely characterize ourselves as fiscal conservatives. I think we would agree that the fiscal path that the United States is on is at some point unsustainable. The Republican budget promises another $4T in debt over the next ten years. I for one am not opposed to looking at the social safety net and making changes where change is warranted, but I am certainly opposed to any changes if the other side is not willing to pay its fair share in taxes.
P.S. The Springfield Public Forum is the only remaining, free lecture series of its kind in the United States. In the spirit of full disclosure, we both served on the board of the Springfield Public Forum at one time or another, which is a terrific organization, unique to Springfield, and worthy of public support. Hopefully, that is something everyone can agree on.