Too much of our public discourse is like the combat of gladiators. On talk radio, on TV news shows, how often do you hear the discussants of an issue working together toward a common understanding? I don't feel well-served by a discussion of abortion, or racial relations, or sexual morality, in which each spokesperson represents only one side of my concerns and treats whoever articulates the other with disrespect. Why is our public conversation so adversarial? Part of the answer is our national fixation on combat as the quintessential drama. In a society where our closest thing to a national religious ritual is the Super Bowl, it should not be surprising that two ideamongers waging battle is our idea of a good political discussion. Another part of the answer is the belief that the adversarial process give us the best way to discover the truth. That's how we conduct inquiry in the courts: Let each side contend to persuade us, the jury, to its position. But I don't think we get the truth we need on public issues this way. Discussion as combat inevitably gives those who hold extreme positions more attention than they deserve. This happens even on the good shows. Often I want to ask MacNeil and Lehrer, or Ted Koppel: When you assembled your "balanced" group of discussants, was it equally hard to find someone on each side? Or did you find that all but a handful among the presumably knowledgeable were on one side of the issue? They never say, but there on television is a scientist who doubts that human activity can affect global climate, or one from the Tobacco Institute to tell us there's no proven link between smoking and various deadly diseases. But the problem isn't just at the extremes. There's also weakness at our cultural center. Let's face it. These days little passion is to be found except at the extremes. One might think the center means "bland," as "middle-of-the-road" implies. But there can be a different kind of center, one as energized by deep conviction as those who so often now wield their half-truths in our cultural arena. To create this kind of impassioned center, however, we have a challenge to face: to find a higher wisdom that integrates the legitimate values of the two sides now embattled in our culture war. The combat of intellectual gladiators is not the way to achieve such an integrated vision. For this, we need to listen to each other and to work together. ??