Despite growing up in a Republican household and hearing all sorts of staunch conservative ideologies thrown around as a kid, I've thought of myself as a liberal for most of my life. I've warred with my dad in a similar fashion as what we see here between Maddow and Buchanan time and again. But setting aside the specifics of the Sonia Sotomayor case, I want to make some comments on the argument against affirmative action.

Despite my liberal leanings, I am a white man, and as such I have experienced some of what Buchanan is describing here. And in the past, I have made a similar argument as his: when we privilege race and gender over credentials and skill, we are supporting reverse discrimination. I have been denied jobs, and later informed by confidants with inside knowledge of the hiring process and/or choice to hire whomever did get the job, that "diversity" was a key factor in the decision.

On a personal level, this stings. It's maddening to know that you've been passed over because you're white, or because your competition isn't. (Especially when you know that the person who got the job isn't as good as you'd have been at it -- again, a verifiable reality sometimes, as it is in the field of journalism.)

However, to take the long view (something I've gotten much better at doing as I've aged), there are enormous historical benefits to affirmative action. If more people of color and women are in positions of power and influence, our society will move forward in ways it can't if only white men hold those positions.

It's necessary to force the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction in order for it to develop a natural momentum, and move to-and-fro on its own.

We are still in that period where we need to force the pendulum sometimes, and while this will necessarily mean "discriminating" against some highly qualified white men in favor of their minority competition, I have no doubt that in 100 years, the United States will be better for it.

I don't entirely disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I am surprised that at his age he lacks the ability to take the long view. He is stuck in the 1950s -- indeed, my dad makes similarly old-fashioned arguments, clearly nostalgic for the time when whites comprised 90% of this country's population.

But as I always tell him, America isn't what it used to be. It's a land of many languages, cultures, and micro-communities. We need to accept that and stop hating it, or we're doomed to lives of bitterness and racist ranting -- whether we recognize it in ourselves or not.

Thanks Veronica and David. You both had very valid points. I enjoy Rachel and tend to cringe at Pat, but recognize that they each have a job: to create public debate. They each do this effectively, and recognize that skill in one another.

The difference between them and us is that they spend their time debating the immediate past, and we spend our time creating a better future. Their thoughts are influenced by advertisers and political parties; our thoughts are influenced by ethics and morals. Their thoughts highlight people's differences; our thoughts bring people together.

I don't think I'd be an effective politician or political news show anchor.