Andrew Sullivan cited this, removing the context of the original (good thing; it has some baggage):
[I]t is generally a good thing for the views of large numbers of citizens to be part of the larger public conversation. This allows others to gauge those views and to make judgments about them, and it helps dissipate the anger that tends to build among people who would otherwise feel excluded. My libertarian friend interpreted this as a straightforward utilitarian claim -- i.e., so the anger will dissipate and these people won't become violent extremists, ergo we will save lives. That's not quite how I would put it. This isn't really a hypothesis we can rigorously test. Rather, it is a gut instinct.
Yes. The original argued:
I think it’s safe to say that many people really do believe we should ignore the sentiments of large numbers of citizens. Some are libertarians, with an instinctive fear of populist excess, and others are liberals who embrace populist language when it is directed at those characterized as rich and powerful but not when it is directed at those characterized as poor and vulnerable.
Contra Howard Dean arguing that the Islamic Center should be an opportunity for a reasonable dialogue. But, I don't really buy this. Who are these liberals who simply want to "ignore" the sentiments of large numbers? All groups in some fashion think there are various cases where large numbers does not translate into the right to force action. See, e.g., Cheney on the Iraqi Occupation or conservatives on gun rights. Same with current events -- saying that same sex couples or Muslims deserve equal rights does not "ignore" people.
It says that majority rule does not always win out in our society. Sometimes, liberals argue that the "large number" deep down has certain concerns that are being addressed, they aren't really being ignored. Either others are for some reason taking advantage of the concerns for their own misguided ends (e.g., Dick Armey and some Tea Party groups) or the specific outlet (e.g., a conservative God and guns) is used that does not necessarily truly address the concerns. We should simply ignore the sentiments of these people -- if anything, we should go a bit deeper and reach their true concerns. Sometimes, they do seem "foreign" (see, e.g., concerns of Amy Sullivan that Democrats don't respect people of certain faiths), but the isolation here often is exaggerated.
Or, simply put, the "large number" is wrong about something (e.g., gays), but this is still not simply about "ignoring" them. For instance, to go back to the opening quote, I welcome the idea of debating with people, including those with whom I basically simply disagree. Respectful debate and trying to obtain some common ground (e.g., even if you don't like gays, you might accept civil unions or at least some rights for them, such as not harassing them in high school) is important. "Ignore," however, is not about not offering them what they want. Sometimes, that simply is not possible.
Clearly, sometimes it is hard to put too much effort in respecting the other side, especially when they are not playing fair or want to deny basic things that you feel results in real hardship or worse. One pet peeve of mine is those who go beyond not agreeing with your side, but go to the next level -- your side is really not playing fair. A judge is a "tyrant" because the person disagrees with the constitutional interpretation involved, when said person would not toss around that word if said judge struck down a law hurting their side. After all, the other side doesn't play fair. It's all political for them. At times, apparently, this justifies simply not taking a serious look at the other side, even if you don't agree, resulting in knee-jerk analysis that is not only wrong, but simply lame.*
Open debate and respect is important, but the problem is that this cannot be taken to simplistic extremes. Not going along with the herd, especially when they are not really informed, is not "ignoring" them. It is not "disrespecting" them as well if their inclinations are toward violating rights or doing wrong-minded things. Also, you really need true debate and fair rules, which is not what Republicans in Congress are doing these days -- the Democrats' balance of power are quite moderate, even conservative on certain issues, but Republicans for political reasons alone don't want to play. Who is "ignoring" now.
True engagement -- tough if necessary.
---
* No one is free from blame here, but progressives do seem as a whole more likely than conservatives to be willing to look at an issue calmly, since progressives are less likely to be so tied to absolutes that reasoned analysis is deemed almost dangerous. Some libertarians are open too (some conservatives too, but less as a norm these days) but some have true believer disease in that area as well. Those more open to government realize the value of compromise more than those who want to drown it in bathtubs.