The latest of my ongoing weekly columns at mancave-site EveryJoe.

Why are political discussions between Left and Right futile?

The short answer is that the Right bases their conclusions on facts, evidence, discriminating judgment, and seeks to discover, through debate, the least painful of the various imperfect options reality offers.

The Left, on the other hand, bases their conclusions on an oddly reckless flight from fact, a distaste for reality that can only be called hatred, and a suspension of discrimination, and that mental act which is the opposite of discovery, namely, the attempt to blank out or unlearn or reject facts of the world and of human nature known to all since prehistory.

As for debate, that is Leftist kryptonite. The Left are immune to facts. Why?

Let us not here address the question of whether Leftists are immune to facts during political debates and discussions. The examples are too numerous to list in a column this size. Instead, let us here seek only to account for it. This column is meant only for those aware of this absurdly common phenomenon. Those who are unaware, or who make themselves unaware, need read no farther, but are directed to the nearest history book.

We have a whole generation of people who seek the kind of thing people naturally seek from God (love, meaning, a moral compass, communion and companionship, self-worth) they are now seeking from politics.

That is why these modern Postchristian people — so overwhelmingly Leftist that in this column I use the terms interchangeably — are immune to facts during normal political discussions and debates: to them it is not a political discussion.

Rather, it is a religious discussion.

Let us distinguish: A political discussion is how best to arrange the laws to achieve peace and freedom. A religious discussion is always about what one must do to be saved.

How best to arrange the laws to achieve peace and freedom is partly a discussion of philosophical priorities, partly a discussion of jurisprudence, of economics, and partly a discussion of practical mass-psychology, that is, identifying correctly the expected results of human beings to various rewards or punishments. These are matters where reasonable people can differ in their judgments regarding the credibility to be granted certain evidence, or can differ in their priorities, but despite those differences, theoretical matters can be discussed rationally via investigating their logical coherence, and factual matters can be discussed rationally via investigating the facts. Therefore some basis for reasonable discussion always exists when the matters concern politics.

On the other hand, the different religions have different answers to the question of how to be saved.

The Christians say to be saved, you must be baptized, renounce the devil, rely not on your own good deed, but accept the generous offer of Christ to justify your sins.

The Postchristians say to be saved you must recycle, be tolerant, fight racism, and distribute the wealth, stop global warming by abolishing fossil fuels.

Read the whole thing, leave a comment, mock the troll, and drive up my clickthrough numbers.