Re-thinking How We Engage Ignorant Ideologies and Their Champions

We are awash in political debate in the era of an ever increasing connectivity to the cyber-world.  While most of us can generally accept the majority of political debate as juvenile and superfluous at best, those of us seeking out alternate forms of journalism and dialogue, (myself included) almost inevitably indulge also, in news about the opposing ideology for comic relief.  This kind of reporting/humor can run a gamut from sharp satire productively re examining a depressing reality ( in the tradition of Voltaire, Twain etc..) to cheap and easy bashing of ideologies so ignorant and dismissible that nothing can be gleaned from paying them any mind but a sense of self righteousness and superiority like that of a human to an oyster.  There is a difference between holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions, and cynically highlighting the ignorance of cultures so isolated and caricaturized that they bear no significance to any edifying debate.  Do we not dull our own sense of social resolve and critical acuity when we are inundated with the political equivalent of  the Jerry Springer effect in articles, tv shows, blogs, memes, and conversation more focused on the surface stupidity of "the other guys" than a real critique of their actions, maybe even a response to the problem?
Now, we can't be impartial observers, interacting with our society in an emotionless vacuum, however we can certainly take another look at how we approach the opposition, internally as well as externally, because both are connected. While the unfortunate phenomenon outlined earlier can leave an observer in a mental stasis, ironically unsuited to the critique the mental stasis they identify in opposing ideologies, simply ignoring sardonic mockery  is not going to re frame societal perceptions.
One can engage the opposition, even from a revolutionary standpoint with our common humanity not only in mind, but the foundation of our philosophical and communicative approach.  Losing sight of this integral part of societal conception, we limit not only the potentialities of our ideological opponents, but also those of our own minds.  I do not refer to semantic nonsense like: "agreeing to disagree", or "don't hate the player, hate the game".  But I do find a succinct expression of the kind of approach I'm trying to articulate in the language of Dr. Cornel West when he says, as he often does: "we love oligarchs, but we hate oligarchy"  This is a more revolutionary response, because it recognizes not only the revolutionary burden to overthrow the current system, but also to exercise human love within the parameters of those constraints, while holding those in power accountable, to the highest degree, for their actions within the corrupt system they organize and perpetuate.  In referring to even his most heinous opponents as brother and sister, he directs his approach from an affirmation of our commonality, a reminder of the intrinsic value of that humanity we hold in common, and a warning not to lose touch with the reality that we are, like our species, at times evil and at times good.  We cannot dehumanize evil people, just as we cannot elevate ourselves to an untouchable superior position.  Both of these approaches redraw reality to make it fit our fantasy.  If we want any chance of understanding and positive motion toward a better society, we need to reject not only the fanatasies of those that oppose us, but also those fantasies we are tempted to create in our own minds.  Our approach must be from a grounded mind, aware of its stature in the project of humanity.