The Left's "Anti-" Argument

Dennis Prager submitted a thoughtful commentary on the limiting, but oft-used, oppositional argument of the left/liberals when countering an issue: they simply call the other person "anti-whatever" to prove their correctness on the topic. As he writes:

One of the more appealing aspects about being on the Left is that you do not necessarily have to engage your opponents in debates over the truth or falsehood of their positions. You can simply dismiss your opponent as "anti." ... The "anti" arguments are effective. Conservatives have to spend half their time explaining that they are not bad people before they can be heard. But the Left has paid a great price. Because they have come to rely so heavily on one-word dismissals of their opponents, they have few arguments.
[for example] Anti-education: Those who object to the monopoly that teachers' unions have on public education and to their politicization of the school curricula are labeled "anti-education." Of course, the irony is that if you love education, you must oppose the teachers' unions.
Anti-intellectual: If you object to the dwindling academic standards at universities, or to the lack of diversity in ideas there, you are dismissed as "anti-intellectual." Given the universities' speech codes, the intellectually stifling Political Correctness that pervades academia, and the emotionalism that characterizes most leftist views on campus (American "imperialism," Israeli "apartheid," "war for oil" are emotional outbursts, not serious positions), if any side seems to express anti-intellectualism, it would be the Left.

It appears that the left/liberals need to be able to see perspectives beyond their own and consider what the other "disagreements" have to offer. If they listen, they might even *gasp* change their mind, or at the very least agree to disagree and respect other viewpoints without treating others as their enemies.