Debate (n.) between an approved left and an approved right only drives the shared assumptions deeper, making them look like the whole spectrum of possible opinion.
Debate (n.) that is properly fenced strengthens the system it seems to question: let controversy rage inside elite assumptions and those assumptions become the very condition of thinkable thought.
Debate (n.) follows one rule: established power sets its terms, and now and then a skeptic is allowed in to observe that the evidence is thin.
Debate (n.) can run all the way from doves to hawks while both agree on the one thing that matters: our position is right by definition.
Debate (n.) can rage over tactics in the mass media whenever elites disagree, yet any view that questions the shared premises stays excluded however fierce the quarrel.
Debate (n.) in a free press is spirited and even encouraged, so long as it stays within an elite consensus so powerful that it is internalized without awareness.
Debate (n.) about a war can run on a spectrum with both ends inside the national self-image: the war was either a noble cause or a costly mistake, never criminal.