Some people on this campus apparently don’t always like what I have to say. Others are greatly entertained when my poison pen starts its weekly flow.

I’m always happy to please both groups, but for different reasons.

My last two columns were packed full of criticism, one for political liberals, one for conservatives. Now, greater questions emerge: Why is it so easy to caricature these extremes? And why do I fiercely anger people in doing so? Well, for a writer, it’s easy to make fun when so many humorous examples exist.

When Barack Obama’s hordes of devotees chant “Yes We Can,” it’s simple for me to talk about his cult followers. When Sarah Palin refers to “Joe Sixpack” on national TV, she is just asking for me to mock her pathetic attempts to appeal to “down home Americans.”

Yesiree, you betcha!

It’s not hard to caricature closer-to-home examples of liberals or conservatives. I can make fun of camo-hat wearing, shotgun-toting conservatives as well as iPod listening, messenger-bag carrying liberals. They are all easy targets.

But should I – or any other writer – dismiss the ideas of these people, oftentimes the blind supporters of their respective parties, simply because they are so different from our own?

I think not.

Some extremists like to be identified with labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” and don’t seem to mind being categorized. But often they become angry if anyone pokes fun at them.

Say what you want about my writing, but I try to separate myself from those who perpetuate these labels.

I don’t like placing people into ideological boxes, wrapping them up in particular groupings.

I don’t think anyone’s belief structure can be based on a view of one particular issue.

Yet these labels persist. People often are left in their boxes with no hope of escape.

This is because many people are too quick to dismiss ideas that are different from their own.

That’s how TV blabbermouths Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly have been so successful. Attached to life supporting teleprompters, they pick petty fights and shout loudly to distract their blind followers from the larger issues of the day.

What these men – I don’t call them journalists – refuse to see is that everyone brings something to the table. They choose to forget our country was founded on the compromise of two extremes. That no matter how bitter campaigns were in the early days (they make modern campaigns look like group hugs), politicians tried to find a way to the center when it counted.

You remember history – we found the two houses of Congress when compromises worked, and a Civil War when they didn’t.

In the end, the middle ground is always the best way to go. Nothing is better in excess, as Aristotle pointed out with his idea of the Golden Mean of Moderation some 2000 years ago. We all have watched the extremes, from Ted Kennedy to Strom Thurmond, that tend to amount to little when left on their own.

The idea is that molten metal, when combined with cooling water, forges the toughest of American iron. And that is where we must go from here. From the dialogue started by name calling and partisanship, we can bring a conversation that transcends the petty bickering between two parties.

These conversations can start in your living room, or on this Opinions page. Speak up. Don’t be silent when someone voices an idea you disagree with. Don’t leave me to rebut myself on these pages when you yourself don’t agree with me.

Our country must proceed on the idea that two people should be able to disagree with each other civilly, and learn something in the process. Try it. Don’t always offend – but do openly discuss.

The founding fathers would be proud.

- Marc McAfee is a senior from Kennesaw majoring in broadcast news.