What liberals mean by dialogue

I do not know Elisabeth Hasselbeck personally, and I am not a viewer of “The View.” But I would like to respond to the three readers who attacked her last week [Letters, April 29].

What I find hilarious about these three letters is the arrogant, elitist attitude they present. Words and statements like “ignorant,” “self-centered” and “Hasselbeck’s disingenuousness is only exceeded by her hypocrisy” tell me how liberals really view others’ opinions. These letters are stark, real, in-your-face examples of how they talk of diversity, consensus, dialogue and cooperation, only to detest and look down upon those who offer it. What liberals really mean is they want consensus and dialogue only with other liberals.

I thought being liberal meant embracing diversity. But just not diversity of opinion? The party of the “big tent” is a great slogan, just remember that to get into the big tent, you need to think like them and only them. Diverse opinions do not qualify. Liberals not only don’t want to have anything to do with anyone who has a different opinion than they do, they go so far as to personally attack those who do. These letters are shining examples of that.

I am a moderate Republican and don’t agree with all of the things President Bush has done, but to call everyone who voted for him as “ignorant” shows that these letter writers are really the ones who are ignorant.

KEITH WHEELER

Laguna Niguel