[[There is no reasoning with trust ...]]
Flawed reasoning to give yourself an 'out'. You simply dismiss out of hand that someone who disagrees with you can have a reasoned position. I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue. That is not only disingenuous, but intellectually dishonest. What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.
You make a good point. There are idealogues on both the right and left. People like Dick Durbin, Howard Dean, or the U-Boat Commander are beyond reasoning with, but there are some on the right who are just as self-righteous and narrow-minded. Pat Buchanan comes to mind, but I don't think he's as extreme as he likes to portend.
But they're out there. My dad, as much as I love him, is a born-again Baptist who loves to try and convert me every time he gets the chance. At the same time he keeps up a running correspondence with Bibi Netanyahu, who he considers the greatest conservative since Reagan and Thatcher, yet he tells me that all the Jews are going to Hell for not accepting Christ as their saviour.
I have a coworker who is a devout liberal but was forced to accept an hourly wage without commission, even though he's a good salesman, because he couldn't, and still can't, leave his politics at home. He's never figured out that sermonizing on the evils of voting for a Republican while trying to close a sale is not the best way to make a living, especially in a conservative town where most of your customers are upper-middle class Republicans.
One of the reasons I've always managed to convert people to a conservative or even less liberal way of thinking is that I don't try and force it down their throats. Yeah, it can be fun, like my Earth Day encounter, to point out certain hypocricies of the left, but I prefer to do it slowly, and let them bring up the subject. Reasonable conversation goes a lot farther than full-bored fanaticism.
That is a flawed conclusion. My statement was that when the opposition argument bottoms out on "trust," dialog on that issue leads nowhere. That position isn't all or nothing against any person. It is the closing off of discussion by the person who asserts that "trust" is the justification for holding a position.
I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue.
That is a variation of the same argument, and I agree - some people on some positions argue irrationally.
What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.
The rift exists. Both sides blame the other. Both sides assert they are right. One side uses arguments that bottom out on "trust."
Sowell is saying the same thing I am. Do you disagree with him?