<p> With some notable exceptions people used to live in diverse populations. They knew - and liked - people who disagreed with them, and they were willing to "live and let live". Now, despite the increased openness of our society, people are more insular and unwilling to consider that a view that doesn't agree 100% with their beliefs might have some validity to it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> Actually, now that I think about it, some of this may be a reaction against the uncertainty that our openness and abundent information can introduce into people's lives. It's easier to retreat into "I'm right, he's wrong" when you're uncertain what's correct.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> A national political correspondent also provided an interesting viewpoint a few months ago. He was commenting how people in congress used to be stuck in DC for long periods and therefore tended to socialize more with each other. (A lot of it was probably them feeling that only someone in a similar position could understand the pressures they were under.) This allowed them to get to know each other and recognize their commonality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> These days, congressmen leave town whenever they can, and tend to stay within their own caucases when they have to stay in town. They don't get to know their colleagues from the other side like they used to, and it's easier to demonize someone you don't know.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> I think Congress ought to institute a new rule that says every member should dine at least once a week with a colleague who's name is drawn at random without consideration of either individual's party affiliation, seniority, or committee memberships. The only rules would be that each person would pay his or her own way, and no "shop" talk would be allowed.</p>
</p>
