In politics, there is a temptation to apply labels to your opposition. So strongly held are your own beliefs, and so clear to you is the infallibility of your logic and reason, that you cannot understand how anyone else could possibly see it any other way but yours. That is, unless the other person were less intelligent than you were, or less educated, or less capable, or totally insane. It's easier, but incredibly lazy, to apply these labels to those who oppose your political stance and dismiss them out of hand. Then, you don't have to do the work it takes to engage in real dialogue because dialogue is pointless.
However, there is a very real danger when doing this. The danger is that you could be wrong. They could have a valid argument. They could have spotted a flaw in your logic, one that needs to be corrected. They could be the key that you've been missing to unlock some previously hidden truth that might very well change your life. It's happened to me on more than one occasion that the person I was so sure was wrong proved to be right about something important, some belief that I was holding on to as absolutely true but hadn't examined nearly as closely as I'd thought.
The other danger in underestimating your opposition is that it just makes you look stubborn, unreasonable, and unwilling to listen. It makes you look like you have a closed mind. The reality is most people consider themselves open minded individuals, and given the right environment and the right opportunities they are willing to correct their course and change their minds - but first, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt. They have to be allowed the room they need to make those changes, because a lot of their life's decisions have been made based on their belief and they're pretty heavily invested in it. The older they are, the more they've invested into this idea, so it isn't easy to change. It isn't going to happen all at once. It's going to take time.
I have seen both sides of the political spectrum make this mistake. It's damaging, and counter-productive. Belittling the other side may have the temporary benefit of making you feel superior, but has the overall effect of preventing any real change from happening. No one gets converted by telling them how horrible or stupid they are. In fact, these things only serve to raise their defenses and block the possibility of any meaningful dialogue and thus destroys the hopes of ever changing the minds of anyone.
Begin with the assumption of good will. Begin by assuming your opponent is just as intelligent, just as educated, just as capable of applying logic and reason, and just as eager to do what is right as you are. They just don't share your perspective. That's why you're engaging in dialogue. You want to see things from their perspective, so that you can be sure you haven't overlooked anything, and you want to help them see things from your perspective by sharing experiences, knowledge, insights, and evidence.
