This is a good post. It illustrates that die-hard conservatives analyze with the same objectives as liberals: to make the world a better place. What's nice is that no one's motivations are attacked, no one called mean names, the author claims no special authority because of his position, offers no personal testimonial and offers an opinion backed by statistics, mechanisms, probablities, etc. You can dispute those, but not his objectives or his rhetorical methods.

It shows that a rational discussion can occur without resort to anectdote-as-evidence, ad hominem as reason, declaration-as-truth, and personal herstory-as-legitimacy. It just takes effort and creativity.