When one of my friends put on her blog that getting Bush out of office was the one thing she wanted most in life, I knew talking politics with her was going to be verboten for the forseeable future. sigh.

I hope it doesn't take another devastating attack like 9/11 to cause us to set aside our differences, or at least the ones that aren't gut-deep, but I think that's what it will take.

You guys are naive. There's never going to be a rapprochement on these issues. Never.

I must agree with Joshua. Viet Nam is the ultimate Ground Hog Day for baby boomers. It is no surprise that Kerry tried to rewrite his involvement in the war and its aftermath as part of the election campaign. And it was inevitable that his candidacy, espeically with its convenient revisionism, would bring the old wounds back to the surface.

Few, if any boomer minds will be changed in any debate that ensues. But the minds of those who follow them and listen to the debate may be; let's hope for the better. Watching this canker fester on the body politic has convinced me of the folly of artificially extending life spans because the only way this will end is with the passing of the last participant.

To come to terms with the war we need to understand the war and its interaction with the American people.

I'd start with getting into the war under false pretenses. Not a good idea.

I'd study the corrupt government in Saigon and the American coup.

Then I'd go to Tet and General Giap's estimate of the value of that battle and where the battle was won and lost.

Then Vietnaization and how that went.

Next point would be Kerry's talking points in '71.

The next point would be American troop levels for various years and accompanying deaths.

Then would be the vote to remove all military funding of the South by the US Congress.

30 April '75.

Now we are into the aftermath.

Massacres.
Re-ed camps.
Boat people.
Cambodia.

And now we are up to the present with the Vietnamese trying to entice us with the rental of Camh Ran Bay for the US Navy.

Look at the economic and political situation of the Vietnamese currently.

We also need to take into account of what Thailand says about the war and the dominos.

==

Once you agree on the history I think the opinion of the war has to come out on the side of the US despite the lies and blunders. What was not a lie was that the people would be much worse off under the communists and maybe the lies to prevent that were not so bad in light of the actual aftermath.

==

I was with Kerry in '71. He seemed so reasonable.

Every time I see him now I cringe.

"I only hope we can have that debate in a way that heals divisions rather than confirms them."

I have no hope on this score. Friendships, even family ties, fail. It is all dead earth and ashes.

"When the horse dies, get off."

Find new friends, look to a different future.

M Simon,

"We also need to take into account of what Thailand says about the war and the dominos."

What does Thailand say?

And Robin, I completely agree with you. We need to start talking to one another, not at one another. The mainstream media will be absolutely no help in this. Not with the shouting shows taking up the dial.

Robin, I also agree with you entirely. Will your friendship recover? Well, that depends on the individual. But what's important is that you spoke up.

Remember, there are more of us than the fossilized lefties suspect. There may be more of us than WE suspect. No matter what, staying "in the closet" about your beliefs will only delay the inevitable; and a friendship built on that basis is a false friendship.

It gets easier, I promise. Not everyone will accept you, but some will. The rest will end up isolating themselves, not you. But we need to start talking to one another.

I'm sorry to read that, Robin. Most of my friends (including my wife) are voting for Kerry and I'm not. But we're all still friends.

Tell your friend you respect her decision and that all you ask is that she respects yours. It really is okay to disagree about this stuff. It's important, but it's still only politics. There is more to life than this, and thank God for that.

Fiirst things first. Robin, I'm sorry that you've had such a fallout with a friend. Losing friends, or even coming to the point where you question the relationship, sucks. I haven't lost friends, exactly, but I've lost respect for some friends; I've seen what looks to me like sheer anti-reality babbling come out of their mouths and I've wondered why I've ever thought of them as good and honest people. It's an ugly feeling to have.

What you've said here reminds me very much, in the terms you've used, of thoughts I've had about our alliance with European countries: we thought all this time that their thinking and values were such-and-such, but we see now that we were mistaken; there are bigger differences in our ways of looking at the world than we thought, and this crisis has exposed these differences.

US politics, along with our vaunted media, continually drives the citizens into a "us versus them" mindset. We have two legitimate political parties, and it seems the only way they can differentiate themselves is to take opposite positions on every single issue. Religion or No Religion. Abortion or No Abortion. Iraq War or No Iraq War. Gay Marriage or No Gay Marriage. Socialized Medicine or No Socialized Medicine. Socialism or Capitalism. And so on.

Aren't there satisfactory "gray area" solutions for some of these subjects? I'm sure there are. And I'm not talking about wishy-washy flip-flopping or "compromise", but honest alternatives to "yes or no, all or none" thinking.

We're losing the ability to rationally debate politics, and again the media is partly to blame. It's all about loud confrontation, mud-slinging and polarization. We've been exposed to it for umpteen years now and it's slowly becoming The Way. It seems most of this year's campaigning has been unsubstantiated claims over "[candidate] did something weally bad thirty years ago", and not about reasoned solutions to real problems. And both sides are equally to blame.

People are scared. And, as a result, angry; nobody wants to be afraid. Yet the resulting polarization in thinking helps our enemies by dividing our will, and as a bonus makes money for the various detractors. (I'm sure Mr. Moore and Ms. Coulter are laughing all the way to the bank.)

I don't know what the answer is. We need a cause everyone can rally behind, but we can't even seem to agree on the survival of the USA these days. It's all about "Blood for Oil!" or "Lefty Loonies!" and not about doing what needs done.

Joshua Chamberlain: There's never going to be a rapprochement on these issues. Never.

I wrote a long post on this over the weekend, though it doesn't begin to do justice to the subject, I realize.

In short, I think there is hope if the 9/11 Democrats truly find their voice in the party, and use it to explain that it's not all about hating Republicans - it's about why we should love America, and what our common stake in American civilization is, in spite of difference on issues.

I think the strongest forces arrayed against Bush are neither liberal (they are definitely NOT LIBERAL) nor leftist, but purely nihilist. At the hard core of the anti-Bush mob are the anti-everything people. Because they think that the country is so fundamentally screwed up, they believe that the democratic system that serves it is screwed up too, and they see no reason to give any loyalty to either. Or to play fair, or even play peacefully.

But even if Bush loses, I'll be optimistic. I think that we have the beginnings of an alliance that stretches broadly from right to left, and that it is seminal even if it is still weak. I never thought that I would be on the same side as Christopher Hitchens (who is voting for Bush, whatever those drones at Slate think). It's no longer a battle at home between ideologies, but between people who have positive values and beliefs, and those who just don't.

I think good things are coming, though we pass through a lot of grief on the way.

I pray and weep for the day when real debate can happen again in this country.

I used to have a close friend, in high school, who was a devout republican. Through college and into grad school, we used to engage in detailed, respectful, careful debates over email. Sadly, we haven't actually seen each other in person in over ten years, and the relationship drifted apart.

Today, I can find nobody who will actually have a rational discussion about the issues that divide us.

I tried, for a while. I tried to engage in actual debates here (WoC) and at Tacitus, two sites where conservatives seemed to be more thoughtful and amenable to discussion than at other places. (And where comments are turned on, comparatively rare at conservative websites). Sometimes, reasonable discussion would ensue, but it was always tarnished by someone willing to accuse me of "taking the terrorists' side" simply because I disagreed with a policy - any policy - of the current White House.

And it happens the other way around. I try to spark discussion and caution moderation when I catch my liberal compatriots engaging in knee-jerk politics, or when I disagree over points or policy. (As often happens even within one side of a polarized issue.) Other liberals look at me like I'm crazy when I fly the flag, as if that somehow makes me a conservative and an enemy.

I'm tired of watching TV "debates" where the candidates aren't allowed to ask each other questions, and where none of them ever takes answers a single question head-on.

I'm tired of it. I'm discouraged. I miss my one conservative friend who was willing to have real discussions, but still respected me at the end of the day. I've run out of ideas for breaking through the barriers and allowing true discourse to happen.

I worry about what will happen to our country if we continue to go on, unwilling to even speak to each other.

So I sympathize with you, Robin, I really do.

Good luck,
Evan

Michael J. Totten,

It's important, but it's still only politics. There is more to life than this, and thank God for that.

You're right. There is more to life than politics. But the problem is that the politics of today will shape life far into the future. The lives of my children and any children they may have will be greatly effected by who gets elected tomorrow. There is no such thing as "only" politics. When one's time frame is measured in generations, politics takes on a very different perspective.

I hope it doesn't take another devastating attack like 9/11 to cause us to set aside our differences, or at least the ones that aren't gut-deep, but I think that's what it will take.

You said it, Tag. I think history's in the driver's seat on this one (particularly re: North Korean loose nukes). Regardless of who's president, our options are very limited there.

With passions running so high, and so much disinfotainment masquerading as common knowledge, it sometimes seems like just having a cross divide conversation requires backing up to find very basic axioms, and sometimes talking across alternative universes (I've had discussions with people who deny we're at war, for example. WTF?!). It's still important to try and bridge that divide, though, to prevent the demonization and division that both sides use to smear the other, and to at least challenge the fashionable cynicism and bizarro conspiracy theories floating around (as a connoiseur of paranoia, I particularly enjoy the "Bush: puppet of Israel AND the Saudis" meme, but it's not particularly any less whacko than the Clinton Body Count rant that was circulating around the net, back in the day). If Armed Liberal's Fear essay and Wretchard's 3 conjectures are anywhere near right, we'll need to pull together as a nation, regardless of who's in charge, and sooner than we might hope.

Simon,

It wasnt helpfull for us that information about how really dark the left are was withheld from us.

Going back to Walter Durranty of the New York times who helped Stalin murder upwards of 10 Million in the Ukraine, the leftist media has withheld from us the evil of those leftist terror states that created a mountain of 174 Million helpless murdered innocents.

Even news of the greatest leftist caused famine in world history, Maos "Great Leap Forward" where 27,000,000 starved to death was presented by the media as a "Agrarian Reformer" success story.

Even today, the Gulag in China, called the Loagai is a horrible fate for those that end up there, never to be seen again. but the leftist media has never even talked of its existence, you dont see them looking too deep into the horrors of the death camps in N Korea, and you certainly dont see them looking into the leftist reasons they exist, just as they have existed in every leftist utopia that ever existed. to do so would get too close to discredit of their leftist faith.

Both David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh are examples of hard core leftist who have seen things that violated their morality, and shocked them out of the zombie goosestep, able to see, once awakened that the leftist reality of totalitarianism and mountains of death is not quite what the marketing selling egalitarian utopia was selling them.

Then, they was able to observe their lot compared to everywhere else on the planet and see the folly of attacking the source of their own confort, among other things.

So what I refuse to do is deny them their humanity. They are twisted with a cultish marxist religion, and I look on them like moonies, in need of intense programming, but I refuse to admit that the spark of morality and reason is dead in them.
Even as it is most certainly dormant and dysfuntional.

Half the schools in the USA indoctrinate the marxist poison, moral relativism, the rejection of reality and objective truth as if the father of thought is Emanuel Kant, the History books now mention only the imperfections and trangressions of american history and push the nonsense that all cultures and points of view are equal, well all equal except america that is presented as inferior and evil.

It gets worse at university, the postmodern kooks openly evangelize the unapologetic stalinist evil that has created the greatest mountain of death the planet has ever seen and persecution that would make Nero blanch.

With thought patterns set in place from early child development onward where one suspects their dysfunctional reasoning might be irreversable, one wonders if some or most are beyond saving.

But if the likes of David, Ronald, and Mr Hitchins can be shaken awake, perhaps there is hope for them.

Robin recently railed at me about Ann Coulter, but never attacked the content as untruthfull, Rude, yes, harsh yes, false no.

Im still waiting for the Liberal, not leftist=liberals but real Classical Liberals, to have the light come on, to have the epiphany, that the Marxists that largely control their party now are indeed monsters, real live monsters, with hearts as black as all the rest who have showed us their horrid works once they become rulers.

They are in bed with monsters, they share talking points notes with monsters, and because they are sharing the same venue and allowing that evil agenda to flavor and polute your own, its what Ann Coulter is talking about. the fact you might not like what she says isnt the point, the questions are, is she right. and if she is right, what now.

Get angry, fine. But humans have adapted to ever greater understanding of the universe, we no longer dance in the sun to drums when we think our crops need a little rain, the altairs of our sacraficical rites have seen no new blood spilled on them for a while.

I saw a sign at ProtestWarrior they often carry.

"Communism has ONLY killed 100 million people
Lets Give it another Chance ! "

Leftism is like the creature in that old cartoon testing for dud bombs with a hammer.

Those dreaming of gulags and a chance to get revenge on all the "eneamies of the people" they think have wronged them by nudging them into a fresh ditch with a machine gun are probably not reachable.

But those with some morals intact, those sleeping with monsters because they dont yet understand their nature and what heppens when they get the power they want, those that would leave evils bed once they understood. thats who I attempt to reach.

The leftist media no longer control all information, the leftist propaganda must now share space with alternatives, Rather Biased, "Fake but true" Dan and his ilk no longer have a strangle hold on perception.

Thats a start.

Raymond,

Sorry, nope, I can't agree with you in the slightest about Coulter. She's a rhetorical bomb-thrower; the Jimmy Swaggert of serious conservative thought.

Kirk

But you have yet to refute anything she says, it still seems an emotional reaction not a factual rebuttal.

"You" in this case defined as all of her detractors en total

She has provided lots of footnotes reality can often not conform to wish and desire but reality is, independent of emotion and opinion.

Are her facts in error ? Is her history inaccurate ?

And if you cannot find factual flaws errors or distortion, what then ?

Ann Coulter isnt the only source of the content of her book, as reality is, it existed before the book existed.

Her book is a concentrate of leftist folly, perhaps far too strong for the taste and a bit tough to chew for many.

Well fine, nothing she presents is new, all that same history and the historical record is available in many other forms.

But if you are unable to attack the content or accuracy, I would ask again

Is she right ? And if she is right, what now ?
What ever beef you have with the packaging is beside the point, are her facts straight ?

I assert they are accurate, i also assert that M Moores recent film would not withstand the same scrutiny. And so I see the compare of Coulter and Moore to be intelectually dishonest.

Raymond

Raymond,

It's hard to refute someone specifically when their biggest fault is broad, sweeping generalizations: "Liberals" do this or that, rather than "Ted Kennedy" has done some bad thing. It's not that she can't find actual leftist folly to point out, but that she can't resist using it against folks who don't stand for it in the least.

Granted, but isnt that understood, you have to assume some minimal IQ of the reader, who understands such complexities of the real world.

But I would also point to those who Lenin called "Usefull Idiots" leftist utopias create mountains of death even as the majority of those that helped them in power had no such design or idea that such horrible things could happen.

When you make an appeal to reason either smoothly or harshly, its the "Usefull Idiots" that you are attempting to reach, to give them pause about following those inhuman beasts of the left who will send to death an even greater helping of those that helped the demon to power outnumbering the body count of those they helped defeat.

Its not the Monsters you are talking to, but the followers.

Germany is not a land of people with "Jew Burner" in their gentics, it was the ideas that was evil. Hilter and his malignant form of "Third Way" leftism he called National Socialism, the Jews was depicted as "Evil Capitalists" but they was not the only victims of the holocaust.

"Overall, by genocide, the killing of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, 'euthanasia,' starvation, exposure, medical experiments, terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from about 15,000,000 to over 31,600,000 people, most likely closer to 21 million men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Italians, Poles, Frenchmen, Ukrainians, and so on. Among them were 1 million children under eighteen years of age."
-R.J. Rummel, Death by Government

Its a kind of insult to the idea of intellect to assume we are attempting to conver those with hearts of black, its those that are not like the monsters they follow we are attempting to reach, that evil exposed will not be followed.

Its the innocent but deceived that is evils base of power, we are reaching out to the moral instincts of those that have it, in the hope that the Monsters followers will turn away from them.

If there had been enough voices of warning during the late days of the Weimar Republic or the rise of Lenin Mao or Castro, these historic Butcher tyrants might not have been even footnotes, you might not even be able to find a single surviving copy of Hitlers book.

The lessons of history teach us to identify evil and rail against it loudly, to not be timid, evil men are certainly not going to be and unapposed these dark black hearted experts in moulding the demands of the mob will gain power again and set about their horrifc work.

Raymond

Linden,

The official line by the Thai government is that the reason they are not a communist nation is that America slowed the Communist advance until they could resist on their own.

Some one from their Foreign Ministry (an Ambassador?) articulated this in a response to a question re: American and Vietnam. Within the last year or so I think.

I have no idea what the people think.

On further reflection i think it was in response to a question about the Domino Theory.

Myth:

The domino theory was proved false.

The domino theory was accurate.

The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.

Although there is still much discussion and dissent among foreign policy experts, political scientists, religious scholars, and intelligence analysts, about the true intent of Iran and the continuing spread of Islamic Fundamentalism, one thing can be safely hypothesized. Unless negotiations, diplomacy, and reason triumph, or dramatic military intervention occurs, it is all too likely that a raging beast of religious fervor could engulf and conquer as many as a dozen nations in the coming decade.

The Clinton years. Funny thing is Bill tried to tell us. But the Republicans, by waving the dick, convinced us Good ole' Bill was just playing wag the dog.

>> I particularly enjoy the "Bush: puppet of Israel AND the Saudis" meme

The expanded version of that meme makes more sense. In this meme, both the Zionists and the Saudis have succeeded in buying different people in the US political system (with Zionist influence strongest in the DoD, and Saudi influence strongest at State). The resulting schizophrenia leads to the current situation. Bush listens to advisors with competing loyalties and tries to make sense of the situation (poorly.)

The fact that people are still bitterly arguing over whether Vietnam was a good idea or not gives you a sense of how likely it is their will be any moderation of political hatred in the coming years.

One of the bad things about the internet is that people can get on websites and carry on these discussions 24 hours a day. It's like spending all your time at a hockey game, screaming for blood and tossing beer at the other teams fans. Is it any surprise that anger is the emotion that dominates all other aspects of political debate?

By this stage I find it hard to deal with right wingers. You get called 'traitor' or 'Osama lover' a few times by some of these guys, you tend to start thinking of all right wingers as being the same. It's natural. Extremists always come to dominate the debate. I'm sure there are some moderate righties who react the same way to people on the left.

"You get called 'traitor' or 'Osama lover' a few times by some of these guys, you tend to start thinking of all right wingers as being the same."

Well, I think that depends on what sorts of things you're claiming. I'm starting to believe that the likes of Michael Moore and Robert Fisk are pretty close to being traitors, but with the exception of one person I know, I would say that most Kerry voters I know are definitely not traitors or Osama lovers. They just have different opinions. Although I will say that it is definitely very difficult to find common ground on basic principals and ways of looking at the world. I think this is the real divide in the US.

Oh, and thank you for the information, M. Simon.

lindenen

Well, this is partly what I mean. People can be wrong without being traitors. Michael Moore, even if he's harebrained, has not even come close to being a traitor. There's no evidence he wants to bring down the U.S. system or help Osama kill Americans. When you say that Moore approaches being traitorous, you're essentially telling anyone who agrees with him that they are almost traitors, too.

People get angry about that. It's unavoidable. (and note- I'd say the same thing to people who say that Bush is a Nazi). There is a lot of bad blood that won't be washed away any time soon.

Calling the people attacking US troops "the Minutemen"? Taking pleasure in a mass murderer of Americans approvingly referencing your pseudo-documentary? Making demonstrably false films that people abroad imbibe uncritically and which paint a horrid picture of this country? The man essentially makes anti-American propaganda. This is why I included him.

I didn't see the whole movie, but I don't remember it the way you do. It was anti-Bush, but I don't remember it being anti-American. It seems to me that it's possible to be anti-Bush without being anti-American, but that's obviously one of the things that the leftwing and the rightwing disagree about.

Lindenen

Sorry, last post was mislabeled. I put your name in the wrong spot.

That's not me ("I didn't see the whole..."). Someone posted under my name.

Oh, ok cool. I was confused about that. :)

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have at least two things in common: neither cares to furher reasoned debate and both are base opportunists. It's difficult to say which is worse, the nihilists or the narcissists.

I love flame wars.

When I need a good one (daily these days) I go to Al Bawaba and have at it.

I especially like Faust who I agree with. Besides he and I carry on a private correspondence from time to time. A most interesting character.

Robin - I am intrigued by your framing of this issue in terms of "values." Of late, I have seen many posts on this site and others accusing both candidates and their respective supporters of failing to participate in certain values that the posters assume to be fundamental. Things like integrity, fairness, honesty, resolve; the charge is that one's political/intellectual rival lacks these qualities, and that this deficiency is the ulimate factor explaining the split between oneself and one's rival.

I wonder if this is in fact the case. I am convinced from reading this site and others that people on opposite poles of the political divide both place utmost importance on values like integrity, conviction, resolve to fight for one's perception of justice and rightness, against all opposition. In fact, it seems apparent that people who agree on nothing political also agree that their favored candidate embodies these fundamental values as they perceive them. It therefore appears that "values" are not the epicenter of the political fissure; setting aside extreme caricatures of one's opponent's position, values are not what divides us. (Setting aside also, for the purpose of making this perhaps overly simplified point, the question of positions on policy that are undergirded by religious belief, such as the proper meaning of the word "marriage.")

Rather, it seems that the source of the divide is better described as perception. People who prize integrity, for example, over all as the polestar of choosing a political leader nevertheless divide bitterly over perceptions of which leader in fact embodies that value. The power of propaganda to manipulate opinion testifies to the central role of perception in informing that opinion. This campaign has also shown that at a certain level, and perhaps for certain factions on either side of the barricade, perception is not empirical; it cannot be fully upheld or overturned by demonstrable facts; it is not, at the root, objective. Thus, we cannot prove ourselves right and our rivals wrong through the evidence of our perceptions alone, and we face a strong temptation to throw up our hands and declare our opponents just don't "get it;" the just don't see the world the way we do.

I propose, however, that it is wrong to chalk up this impasse to divergent values. For when we declare that we must disagree because we simply don't share values, we are not making a dispassionate, neutral statement respecting our rivals' rights to their opinions and assuming, as we would have them assume of us, that they hold these opinions in good faith. Rather, we are choosing to end the debate by declaring ourselves ultimately right, by implying that our opinions are informed by a more fundamental insight of truth and justice and rightness than those of our opponents. This is not an appeal to cooperation or mutual understanding; it is the ultimate denial of legitimacy for those who disagree with us. In the end, attributing our political differences to a lack of shared values is fundamentally un-democratic, because it implies that our political opponents are unable to conceive of our democratic society the way we ourselves do, thereby justifying denying the legitimacy of their position.

I apologize in advance if I'm putting words in your mouth; your post just touched on something that I've been thinking about throughout this election season, in discussions, arguments, and outright fights with people across the spectrum of opinion. I do believe that as Americans we share values that we prize in telling ourselves who we are as a people, and that we can disagree strenuously about which leaders or policies are best suited to enact those values, without denying that this essential common character exists in all of us.

Robin

Sorry to hear about the potential loss of a friend. I personally don't have much advice I can give that could potentially save your relationship. I can say this, from personal experience I have very few close and dear friends. I can count them all on one hand and still have room for more. True friendships are not something that happens in passing and even though people may be acquaintances that you deal with on a daily basis this alone does not make a friend. In my opinion a true friend is an extension to immediate family and enjoys the status of any family member. Differences aside be they political or otherwise do not necessarily destroy that type of relationship. It’s not to say that differences can’t or won’t destroy friendships because they do. It is all a matter of how those differences are resolved that ultimately tests the metal of a true friend.

If you like you can revert to Dr.Phils premise. You can either be right or you can have peace. It is up to you what you value, your principles or the preferences that life sometime offers like a stick and carrot. Being principled finds you alone quite a bit, but it also helps you to avoid corruption and wrong doing.
If a friendship or familial relation cannot survive your stand on principles then sadly that association was not as valued as you always assumed.
Always we must be true to ourselves first, because all else will be founded on deception and lies. That foundation is always quicksand.
You have only to look around you, at yourself and others and see what the decisions that were falsely decided on have led them. Like someone who marries for the wrong reasons, years and children later the consequences are unpalatable. But you can't go back.

applesweet,

I think I understand Dr. Phil's sentiment. I feel a bit differently about it, but I think "you can either be right or you can have peace" was intended to be a stepping stone to the greater truth, that being right is a peace in itself.

Going even further, the greater peace is a compromise between being right and the peace had from simply pleasing your friends.

Further still, I would submit that the greatest peace of all comes from seeing and shoring up the cracks in what we thought was right before, helping our friends shore up their own cracks, and coming to some common understanding of what was really right between the both of us.