Instead of drawing on a single example and claiming that the truth must be in the middle somewhere, try coming up with two examples, preferably contemporary if possible, one from the right and one from the left, one where the weight of the facts and of history are clearly on the side of conservatives, and another where they are on the side of liberals. Then, compare how various parties act when this issue comes up either in the media, or in government, or whatever, and how you think they <i>should</i> act.<p>The reason I say this, is that the very way you have framed this gives no one any reason to be reasonable or non-partisan. You may not realize it, but you have described an adversarial relationship where both sides on the issue have good reason to be as extreme and intransigent as they can, with a view to dragging the conversation more in their direction so that the final compromise favors them. If, instead, we cared more about facts and results, and were actually willing to call out one side as being totally wrong and off-base, and undeserving of a seat at the table in negotiating this or that point of policy, everyone would have an incentive to act reasonably lest they be cast out entirely.<p>We&#x27;re all adults - we don&#x27;t need to be coddled. If someone is clearly in the wrong, they should have that explained to them. After that, if they continue to assert that their wrong opinion should factor into policy somehow, they should be ignored.<p>And don&#x27;t get me wrong, I&#x27;m totally aware that American culture is a long, long way from being able to do this. But it should be a goal, anyway, and your advice points us in the wrong direction.