The Anchoress

That’s the sound of political discourse in the United States of America, in the year of our Lord, 2005. It is a rude sound and an unsophisticated philosophy, and it has - sadly - infected large numbers of people in both political parties.

On the left, that sound is the sound of people who utterly refuse to find one positive thing in George W. Bush, or to give him the benefit of the doubt on any issue, any at all. Any charge brought against him is immediately “credible and true,” and his humanity is completely discounted. He has become so demonized that he is no longer a human being to these people. He is something to hate. And hate…as we all know…is easy.

Conversely, they utterly refuse to allow any criticism whatsoever, no matter how temperate or constructive, against the Clinton Administration. Every charge is “trumped up,” every word uttered by a “Clintonista” is “credible and true.”

On the right, that sound is the sound of people who utterly refuse to find one positive thing in Bill Clinton, or to give him the benefit of the doubt on any issue, any at all. Any charge brought against him is immediately “credible and true,” and his humanity is completely discounted. He has become so demonized, that he is no longer a human being to these people. He is something to hate. And hate…as we all know…is easy.

Conversely, they utterly refuse to allow any criticism whatsoever, no matter how temperate or constructive, against the Bush Administration. Every charge is “trumped up,” every word uttered by a “Bushie” is “credible and true.”

People, people, people…this has got to stop. I am calling for a time-out. Everyone back in the sandboxes and listen up for a second!

Admittedly, there are some - hopefully many - in both parties who have not completely absorbed the “Grunting Philosophy,” who are able to look at a news story with some small amount of objectivity, who do not immediately spring into heated rhetoric. But…I’d say most of them are not blogging.

I will admit that sometimes, on the blogs, it is extremely easy to get caught up in the heat of things. You read something and it irks you, particularly if the press seems to be “framing” a story instead of just telling it, then you read a few comments that are rude and obnoxious, and you feel your blood pressure rising, your jaw tenses up and you bang out an intemperate response that, were you face-to-face with your adversary, you might have either held back or made more carefully, and diplomatically. Because it is easy to lose your cool and not be in control. Discipline is more difficult. It is easy to be a hothead, and I know it, because I am an Irish one, myself. It is easy to be cynical, and not subject yourself to a charge of naivete’. It is easy to follow the lead of a mob, and easy - so easy - to hate. Oh, it is so much easier to hate than it is to love.

Chesteron said it is easy to be hard; hard to be light.

I can say all of this because I myself, to my shame, have now and then gotten caught up in it. Not for nothing did my friend Joe Marshall once refer to me as a “glittering holy terror when annoyed.” (Friend? But Anchoress, he’s a liberal, and a really, really staunch, Bush-hating one.)

Yeah, he is. But he’s my friend, too. Politically we agree on almost nothing, and we never will, but we have found a way to respect each other, even though Joe is vastly better educated than I, and I am vastly prettier than he.

Lyle, who comments here often, keeps dropping me emails telling me that he does not understand how we can be friendly, because he disagrees with every word I write. But we’ve developed a warm and surprisingly intimate sort of emailing pen-pal relationship.

In the past few days, I have had the pleasure of corresponding with a few liberals who will never, never, never move from their positions and who disagree with me and will for ages unto ages, amen. And each time we correspond successfully, and the civility between missives holds, I pray.

I pray that simple civil discourse can somehow enter into the arena of politics, that invective will lose its charms for some, and frenzied, overwrought political theatrics - whether they involve Randall Terry hanging around the Schindler family in Florida or the agenda-movers surrounding Mrs. Sheehan, in Texas - can be shut down like the bad farces they are.

I’ve been praying for it a lot, this week, because I really am becoming quite worried. The blogs are becoming powerful political forces, and as such, I am thinking that we who manage them must find a way to promote civility in our intra-blog discourses and in our commenters. If political parties on both sides cannot move beyond hands-over-the-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you, you freakish #*&@* echo chambering, if people do not put the brakes on the “Grunting Philosophy,” the blogosphere, and perhaps the nation, may yet eat its own heart out.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter – bitter”, he answered,
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”
- Stephen Crane

I think the blogs can be a force for either building up dialogue and serious debate, or for hastening the devolution of political give-and-take in America. And I am beginning to feel, strongly, that if we bloggers can help re-build constructive discourse, we need to begin to undertake such re-building now. There is not a moment to waste.

The two stories that are getting the most blog-play today, throughout the so-called blogosphere are the stories about the utter failure of the the 9/11 Commission to play straight with information that came to them, and which would have materially changed their final report, and the story of Mrs. Sheehan. I am not going to expound on the details of either case - if you are reading this, you can google and technorati as well as I can, and you can see the lines drawn on both sides, for yourself.

What I am going to do is ask the blogs - both sides - (which are, contrary to the opinion of some managed by mostly intelligent, educated people) to take both stories and eliminate the noise, eliminate the knee-jerk suspicions and raised eyebrows. I’m asking the blogs to suppress the urge to bellow at “those fiends!” on the “other side” of each story and consider what the story, finally, means for America. I’m asking the bloggers to, having hacked through the clinging vines, obfuscation and media frames and narratives, look at the very serious and fundamental questions that exist within each story.

In the Able Danger story, let us ask this: Aside from all of the political noise and hyperventilation, the 9/11 Commission now admits that it actually omitted from its final report information that illustrated a specific failure in intelligence gathering that - had it been included - would have materially changed the thrust and tenor of its report, and seriously called into question a rather bold conflict-of-interest involving a panel member. Since the 9/11 Commission admits it, and has thereby destroyed the credibility of its own report, is it not in the interest of the country to determine how, and by whom, the decision to omit this finding came to be, considering the Commission’s cost to the nation in terms of both hard dollars and public angst? We can stipulate that neither President Clinton nor President Bush “caused” 9/11. With that stipulation, can we join together to call for an investigation that is in the best interests of the country?

As to the Sheehan story, the question is a simple one made more difficult by the extreme emotional foundation of the story, and it is this: Beyond the emotion, beyond the spin which - it must be acknowledged - is quite possibly a help and an amusement to the very people who killed Casey Sheehan, people who would be frankly delighted to see America pull out of Iraq and render the deaths of 1800 soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens utterly meaningless, beyond all of that, what will a second meeting with President Bush bring to Mrs. Sheehan that the first meeting did not, why does she need a second meeting when other grieving mothers and fathers seem content with one, and how are her words and actions affecting the morale and safety of the 100,000 other young men and women who are still in Iraq?

Those are the questions - all the rest of it is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The blogosphere is fun, and fast, and furious and funny, fierce and frenzied - it can be a tremendous boon, but not if - in the course of our dashed-off conceits and constructs, we lose sight of each other’s humanity. What I saw today - on many different blogs, both liberal and conservative - were commentors (or emailers) who crossed clear lines of simple decency, with no suggestions that they “rein it in” from blog-hosts. In several cases, bloggers under particularly vicious attack felt they had no recourse but to threaten to go after their attacker’s livelihoods, as the emailers and commenters had launched their attacks from their places of business. Having read the vituperative emails, I cannot say I blame the bloggers for doing so, but on the other hand, when we’ve reached that point, when such clear lines are routinely crossed and the victims of the invective feel that action must be taken which can prove very severe, then things are literally like dried tinder waiting for the right spark - a dangerous situation.

So, really - there are two more questions:

Bloggers need to ask themselves if their rhetoric is so inflammatory and undisciplined that it could possibly inspire a hateful spark that could mean danger for another human being. Blog commenters need to ask themselves if they are ready to pay for a fast unleashing of pent up hate and frustration with their jobs or their liberty.

There is no excuse for writing to anyone using vulgar language. If it is all you can do, then restrain yourself - go get a cup of coffee and calm down. And there is no excuse for blogging like Al Pacino on crack.

I once heard Peggy Noonan on a panel show say “Decent people may disagree and still be decent people!” I have never forgotten that, because it was so obvious, and so true, and yet…

Earlier this week, the “noise” of various media almost made me shut down. And then I remembered Ms. Noonan’s words, and I committed myself, then and there, to promoting civility - as much as a hotheaded Irishwoman can (there is that genetic limitation, you know) and to reminding visitors to my site, at least, that decent people may disagree, and still be decent people.

Luckily for me, I have some very excellent readers from every side of the spectrum, and from every religious gang, too. Decent people, all. We all can be. Shall we try? I am ready to pledge myself to it. I hope other bloggers will, too.

UPDATE: And…I guess…some will not.