On the prevalence of tosh

 Reasonable people agree that on most issues "reasonable people can disagree." 

But what we have today is the choice by both major political factions, on every issue, not even to attempt to engage with the critique of the other side, but simply to delegitimize it as "radical," "communist," "far right," "far left," etc. In other words, to rule it out, as off limits, a matter that is outside the bounds of "reasonable people." The range of available alternative views becomes, by this means, narrower by the day. 

This is the predominant tactic, the preset, of both sides on almost every issue. This is why almost every conversation on matters political (from impeachment to minimum wage law to border security to the Electoral College to gun rights) winds up sounding like complete tosh. 

The idea of weighing pros and cons has become a quaint anachronism. Advocates for one position simply rule out alternative views as partisan (implying that only their own view is the result of objective analysis). In this rhetorical move we see the glimmer of an authoritarian new day, when only the views of one side are available to the public. "Reasonable people" turn out to be progressives only or conservatives only, and every complex issue is trimmed to neatly fit the prevailing view.

Barrack Obama was a subtle practitioner of this art, and Donald Trump an un-sublte one. Perhaps it is asking to much to expect anything else from politicians, but the rest of us might try to be more open-minded. Still, I expect nothing but partisan tosh.