Letter from the Editor

In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.

—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

Dialogue is one of the great things about America. On virtually any issue, you can find intelligent people who have divergent opinions and can back them up with hard data. Unfortunately, though, the way we go about discussing these ideas is usually not productive. More often than not, two-sided discussion does not happen at all. Most media outlets are explicitly biased, and those that claim to be objective clearly lean to one side. Each one has a target audience of those who agree with its point of view. Thus, they deliberately preach to the choir and are not inclined to present both sides of an issue.

When the media does feature what passes for “intelligent debate,” it is often nothing more than a shouting match, with the two sides talking over or past each other. Such discussion does nothing but polarize and antagonize. Moreover, traditional print and broadcast media are not well-suited to balanced debate in the first place. TV and radio have time constraints—they have only so much time to allot to each side before they “have to end it there.” Print media has an additional constraint: They have only so much space to give away until they have to move on to something else.

Nonetheless, there remains in America a hunger for intelligent, balanced debate among the best representatives of their positions. This can be seen whenever a public debate or roundtable discussion occurs with multiple viewpoints represented. PublicSquare.net is intended to satisfy this hunger by making intellectually stimulating debate our modus operandi. Balanced, two-sided discussion isn’t just an occasional diversion; it’s our raison d’etre. We actually invite authors, scholars, pundits, and other experts of all persuasions to make their respective cases to a general audience, letting their arguments stand or fall on their own merits. And because it’s all online, there are no time or space constraints, so no one has to worry about not having “the last word.”

As you’ll see, the real value in this kind of dialogue is not simply each side being able to state its view. Rather, what makes the discussion on PublicSquare.net unique is that each viewpoint is tested by criticism from the other side. Want to know what conservatives think? You know where to go. Want to know what liberals think? You know where to go. Want to know how each side responds to the other? PublicSquare.net is your only destination.

In addition, the discussion is not limited to the “elite” expert authors. Ordinary people can join in and converse with the authors and each other. You can put in your two cents, ask the questions that nobody else has asked, and decide for yourself who has the stronger argument. You can even start discussions of your own. But PublicSquare.net deliberately avoids the language of warfare: Authors do not “square off”; they engage in civilized debate. There is no “battle” for the truth; each case is carefully considered by our intelligent readership and stands or falls on its own. Discussions are moderated to prevent them from turning into shouting matches.

It is my aim to improve the quality of debate in America through PublicSquare.net. We won’t reconcile all of our differences; we may be even more polarized than we would be without this website. But at least everyone on all sides of the issues that divide us will know where to go to learn how each position defends itself against critiques from the opposite point of view. That in itself will be a major contribution to the state of public dialogue in our great nation.

James Kidd
Founder and Editor