|
|
September 26, 2006Civility in political discourseI recall watching one of the debates between then-Governor Bush and Vice President Gore - it was the “townhall” debate, the one where the candidates could stroll about the stage and answer questions from the audience. (Yes, the one where Gore went over to Bush and got in his face, standing there while Bush talked, and the governor smiled, said “how you doin’?” and continued on.) At the time of that debate, I was no longer calling myself a “liberal democrat” but I still had not gone over to “the dark side” and pulled a lever for a Republican. But I was struck by Dubya in this debate, both by his amused look at Gore, and by a response he made to a woman in the audience. She got up with a little bit of an attitude, doing the “powerful woman and angry Dem” thing. I don’t recall the question, but Dubya’s answer made me pick my head up from my needlework. He said, simply, “well, this is just a difference of opinion…” A difference of opinion…after 8 years of the Clintonistas turning every issue into a morality play with the Democrats always on the side of the angels against the “morally reprehensible” Republicans, after listening to Al Gore declare that the 2000 election was “a fight between good and evil…” I was more than relieved to hear “this is just a difference of opinion…” Because really, that’s all it is. All of the mouth-foaming hysteria, all of the name-calling, all of the demagoguing between left and right, either on the senate floor, or in the op-ed pages, or in the blogosphere. It’s just a difference of opinion. Having watched politics all my life, I can state categorically that I never heard “the loyal opposition” of either side characterized as “evil” before the Clintons got into the WH. By the time they left, both sides were resorting to that language, but it started with the game of making one party out to be not simply “wrong,” but “evil.” Those eeeeevil Republicans who want to poison your drinking water, kick grandma in the wheelchair down the stairs, starve your children at school and take Big Bird off the air. I never noticed Reagan using that sort of rhetoric, nor even Bush 41. That crap started in the 1990’s with the “war room,” and the “scorched earth” policies of the Clintons, and they have done us damage. It didn’t help that many Republicans also let loose with the extreme name-calling, back then, either. It just ratcheted everything up to where we stand today.* I never liked it, that extreme language, those extreme characterizations. I didn’t like it when I was a Democrat writing letters to the editors in support of Jimmy Carter’s policies over Ronald Reagan’s “negotiating with terrorists” (and I was told that I was “too easy on the retarded, mommy-loving cowboy”) I don’t much cotton to it, now. A friend of mine (a centrist Dem) recently told me of an exchange he had over Condi Rice. In daring to characterize the Sec’y of State as “whip smart” he was castigated by a leftist who carried on about how Rice is a Rove-bot, a Bushian slave, a liar, a stupid tool, etc, etc. He said to me, in frustration, “I hate people like that. I hate it when they are so locked into their political hate that they can’t give a person his due.” Let’s face it, like her or not, Condi Rice is smart and accomplished. She speaks Russian fluently, plays piano at the concert-level, was the youngest provost of Stanford University. Apparently, though, you cannot be “smart” if you are a Republican. I don’t especially like Hillary Clinton, but I have acknowledged on this site that she is both smart and clever (there is a difference) and that she works very hard to get what she wants. I’ve even defended her right to cleavage. I’ve called Bill Clinton “full to the brim with talent,” and “gifted.” This weekend, at a birthday party, a fellow guest told me that her son wants to “fly planes,” for a living. But he’s doing lousy in math, though and his SAT scores were deplorable, and and he’s failing Spanish, needs a tutor. “Well, a second language is nice,” I said, “but you don’t need it to fly a plane. He will need the math, and physics, too, if he’s going to fly, though,” I told her. She nodded in agreement and said “it takes some real smarts to fly a plane…” A few minutes later she was telling me what a moron President Bush (ahem - he flew F-102 fighter jets and speaks a second language…alright, he doesn’t speak it elegantly (nor does he in English), but he can make himself understood and be understood*) is and how “he’s the stupidest president we’ve ever had.” Later she asked me what I meant when I said The DaVinci Code was fiction. “You mean, like, it’s not true?” Yes, she’s a Democrat. She and her husband are college-eschewing, blue-collar “working people,” (and we need more of them, imho) who are buying their third house “on spec” and live a very comfortable life w/ twice-yearly vacations and new cars every few years, and yet President Bush is “destroying the economy and he’s a stupid asshole…” It was a long evening. It’s so easy to call someone (or some group) “moronic,” - it is always easier to denigrate and call names than it is to acknowledge and respect the strengths of those you consider an “enemy.” It is easy, but it is shortsighted, too. I routinely praise “the loyal opposition” for their strong points, and I do so for two reasons: 1) There is no reason not to recognise another’s gifts unless you are insecure in your own. 2) If you cannot see past your political fury to acknowledge your opponent’s gifts and strengths, you are bound to succumb to them. From time to time I get an email asking me why I do not “join in the fray” of some blog war or another, or why I don’t respond to a blogger who has called me some name. Again, two reasons: 1) You know how your iron serum level is supposed to be at between 35-175? Mine’s just breaking 20. It used to be 8. I don’t have a lot of energy to waste on that crap. 2) It’s just a difference of opinion. This is America. If someone wants to disagree, they’re entitled. If they want to call me a name, well, that says nothing at all about me, and loads about them, so what do I care? And my site-meter doesn’t mind a bit. I decided the first time I saw myself referred to as “The Wankeress” (which struck me as pretty funny, btw, and made me laugh) that my job is to treat everyone as respectfully as I can, and not to reciprocate in kind. I might be boring, but that’s my choice. There is a deep and ugly chasm between left and right in this nation, like a sabre slice that is going untreated and infecting the whole body of the nation, and weakening it. As long as we have folks on the right referring to Democrats as “Demoncraps” and former presidents as “BlowJob”, as long as we have folks on the left referring to Republicans as “extra chromosome people,” (nice and compassionate toward the impaired, btw) and to the president as “Bushitler” the body is going to continue to weaken. I know there are plenty of sites, both left and right, which engage in the ugliness of name-calling. But there are many on the right and some on the left, who do not. I simply prefer to be one that does not. If one blogger shrieks into his or her echo chamber, there really is no need to shriek back. [*added for clarity - admin] Related: http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/26/civility-in-political-discourse/trackback/ 30 Responses to “Civility in political discourse” |
September 26th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Thank you for your post! The Internet is a wonderful place for discourse, however, it all too often disintegrates into nasty name calling and tearing down of people. It is important to hear/read words like yours to hopefully elevate peoples minds to exchanging ideas without denigrating the people despite a “difference of opinion”. Thanks again for the reminder!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Bravo! ( )()( )()( )(). (also the sound of one-finger typing) -cp
September 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
The divide you describe is very obvious to me. Familes and friends are deeply divided, so much so that we can’t agree on a common set of facts. I feel that we are in the midst of a slow-burning civil war right now with no end in sight.
It is worrisome for the future because some people are so deeply invested in their side of the argument.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Dear Anchoress:
An excellent read, with a wonderful collection of current events. I have a related link — a website demontrating that President Bush is the Antichrist.
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
This is either excellent satire or delusional obsession. But it provides an excellent example of the corrosion in civility present in politcal discourse.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
[Comment deleted by admin due to duplication. As described in the "Comments Rules Button at Sidebar" I am experimenting with moderating comments, so if you do not see your comment immediately, assume it's in the line. I am pretty good about keeping up with them as long as I'm home] - admin
September 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I’ve felt the same way regarding the Clintons, Gore and civil discourse. I remember “It’s the economy, stupid!” and Gore hovering like a vulture over Bush during one of the debates. Made a very bad impression on me.
I voted for McGovern and Dukakis. Living in Tennessee at the time, I even voted for Gore for Senator. Since 2000 I’ve voted Republican for every national office.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Oh, those anti-Christ things are hysterical. I’ve seen them about Reagan, Clinton, Hillary, Mickey Mouse, JPII, Benedict. It’s amazing how many people add up to 666.
‘
Ever stop to think that the beast is not “one man” but an one aspect of all mankind?
‘
Something to think about!
September 26th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Civility in Politics
The Anchoress displays her usual gifts in outlining the great need for civility in political discourse. Read her article, but I’ll sum up my similar thoughts on the subject:
* Don’t panic!
* The other side just has a difference of opi…
September 26th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I saw a bumper sticker on the weekend that tickled my funny bone;
The Neighbor of the Beast
667
September 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Bravo! And this is why I read this blog. I too am weary of the facile insults and the demonization. We get some of that in Canada too. Not as severe, but it’s most noticeable in the blogosphere where the echo chamber effect seems to prevent adult influence.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Peddling Crazy on MSNBC
I never watch MSNBC. But maybe I should start watching just to see the kind of mental illness they’re peddling. Olbermann needs help. This rant is far beyond the pale, barely worthy of the blogosphere, never mind a widely distributed cable TV network….
September 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Excellent post- deserving of further discussion.
When we can’t talk to each other, we cannot compromise- and that is the real issues.
The extremes on either side lose if we compromise.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
“Bushitler”? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that one, who is that? Oh, wait, I get it now, you’re talking about our RepubliKKKan Prezidunce Chimpy MacFlightsuit, right? HaHaHaHA.
No, just kidding, really I am. I get aggravated at that kind of behavior too, from both sides. About the best thing you can do is laugh at them, hopefully they’ll get the message as to how stupid they sound.
On the other hand, the fact that the level of political discourse has sunk so low is damaging to our national, political, and cultural life, so it ain’t really funny.
It’s nice to see somebody else that realizes it takes two to dance that dance.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“you cannot be “smart” if you are a Republican”.
On some blog or other, a commenter went on and on about how stupid GWB is. I pointed out that GWB had 1)graduated from Yale, 2) got a Masters from Harvard, and 3)had flown jets.
The commenter rejoined by stating that a Masters from Harvard was not a sign of intelligence.
Sigh. What can you say to that kind of blindness. I had not pointed out that GWB’s accomplishments made him “right” about anything. Just that of all the bombs you can fairly hang around GWB’s neck, stupidity is not one of them.
But to the BDS’ers?
Look, what kind of people would make the statement that a Masters from Harvard is not a sign of intelligence? How lumpen is that?
September 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
And yet if Al Gore had an MBA from Harvard (he doesn’t…does he even have an advanced degree? I don’t know) that same person would be using it as evidence of how smart he is.
I don’t have an advanced degree, btw. But I never said I was smart!
September 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
We have such need for two strong parties in the country to hold one another accountable. What we currently have frankly disgusts and frightens me.
I have residual anger against Clinton, as it seems to me that he betrayed his supporters, his family, his party, and his promise and potential. And I too, began my migration away from the Democratic party during the Clinton years. I too, was betrayed.
It has been my recent approach to pray for Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Gore, etc, etc. although I detest their approach and policy positions. That’s a much different thing than detesting THEM. And your study on the wounds of WJC that are reflected in the flaws - well it’s a brilliant analysis and helpful to my peace.
That said, I don’t know how one can effectively govern from the far fringes.
And I pray that it doesn’t take a nuclear destruction of an American city to get us to stop the sniping and get on with conducting this war.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Civility Defined
And not surprisingly, it’s The Anchoress who defines it:There is a deep and ugly chasm between left and right in this nation, like a sabre slice that is going untreated and infecting the whole body of the nation, and weakening…
September 27th, 2006 at 9:19 am
[...] The Anchoress talks about being civil, well worth reading, here is a excerpt It’s so easy to call someone (or some group) “moronic,” - it is always easier to denigrate and call names than it is to acknowledge and respect the strengths of those you consider an “enemy.” It is easy, but it is shortsighted, too.I routinely praise “the loyal opposition” for their strong points, and I do so for two reasons: [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 10:08 am
[...] The Anchoress was on the same wave length yesterday. She’s had enough as well. Having watched politics all my life, I can state categorically that I never heard “the loyal opposition” of either side characterized as “evil” before the Clintons got into the WH. By the time they left, both sides were resorting to that language, but it started with the game of making one party out to be not simply “wrong,” but “evil.” Those eeeeevil Republicans who want to poison your drinking water, kick grandma in the wheelchair down the stairs, starve your children at school and take Big Bird off the air. I never noticed Reagan using that sort of rhetoric, nor even Bush 41. That crap started in the 1990’s with the “war room,” and the “scorched earth” policies of the Clintons, and they have done us damage. [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Anchoress, you’ve got to be kidding. Bush doesn’t “speak a second language.” Nevermind his struggle to speak English fluently, but Spanish newspaper across the board believe that Bush’s grasp of the language is amateurish at best.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“Having watched politics all my life, I can state categorically that I never heard “the loyal opposition” of either side characterized as “evil” before the Clintons got into the WH. By the time they left, both sides were resorting to that language, but it started with the game of making one party out to be not simply “wrong,” but “evil.” Those eeeeevil Republicans who want to poison your drinking water, kick grandma in the wheelchair down the stairs, starve your children at school and take Big Bird off the air.”
You know, I began reading that paragraph as you saying that all the crazy attacks on Clinton–as a communist, a thief, a rapist, a murderer, ad nauseum–were the first that you had seen of this destructiveness. (You should really go read the pamphleteers the Our founders had to put up with). But you seem to end it by saying that Clintons started it all. That can’t be what you meant, can it? Just an inartfully written paragraph, right?
Otherwise, I’d challenge you to find a quote where the Clinton’s called anyone “evil.” To argue that by failing to keep up with inflation in children’s programs, you are, by definition, hurting some children, or by failing to enforce EPA regulations, you are per se causing an increase in the risk to peoples’ health, is not nasty name-calling. Moreover, many opinion makers on the right embraced being called “evil,” because it was an easy caricature to debunk, much easier than the facts. Try googling “ChimpyMcHitlerburton,” and see where you find it used.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Civility in political discourse
Words of wisdom from the Anchoress.
She explains why she does not want to listen to all the name calling in
politics. This is a good article for all who blog, or have differences
of opinion. Be civil! Link. Tags: bloggong, blogging ettiquette,…
September 28th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Thank you so much for writing this. I read it the other day and linked to it in my blog.
Low and behold today I find myself the subject of a wonderful leftie blog “hit piece”. All because of a little innocent, pretty respectful comment about copyright, and FOX’s right to request files be taken off of YouTube and that it doesn’t constitute censorship. Heck, I didn’t even say a word about the contents of the clips they discussed (Clinton’s interview).
That got me a scathing flame complete with lots of cusses, and such. Like you, I am so tired of this. I was challenged to a “debate” with these people, but how do you debate someone who slings ad hominem attacks with every other breath?
Maybe I should thank my new “admirers” for the extra traffic? Maybe I should feel special that they are wasting time on me?(o;
Nah.. I guess I’ll just pray for them as they seem to get really upset about that part of my website specifically. LOL
Anyway, thanks again for writing about this as at least I know I’m not alone in my observations about the “left”, and my frustration with it all. Gosh, it feels like High School all over again!
September 28th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hello to a former Dem. I totally agree with “Civility in Political Discourse” with one exception. When one side is putting ALL of us in danger with name calling I draw the line. Hypocrisy in the 90’s is why I changed parties and vitriol is why I haven’t gone back. It would be nice if everyone would at least back the President in the War on Terror but it’s not so and more than just a “difference of opinion”. Those whose sole objective is to regain power at the expense of our safety need to be stopped.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:58 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Unhinged or Calculated by Soccer D…
September 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
[...] The Watcher’s Council has announced its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post was Soccer Dad’s post on President Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace, “Unhinged or Calculated”. Second place honors went to The Sundries Shack’s “No Commitment” and Joshuapundit’s “A New Peace Proposal for the Middle East”. The winning non-Council post was Isaac Shrödinger’s post on his application for political asylum in Canada, “Fear and Loathing in the Land of the Pure”. The second place non-Council post was The Anchoress’s “Civility in Political Discourse”. [...]
September 30th, 2006 at 9:19 am
The Council Has Spoken:
The winning post this week was by Soccer Dad, Unhinged or calculated, in which he argued that Bill Clinton’s outburst with Chris Wallace last weekend was a calculated attack. I might agree there was pre-meditation, but I also think the
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 am
Watcher’s Council Results
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Unhinged or Calculated by Soccer Dad, and Fear and Loathing in the Land of the Pure by Isaac Schrdinger. Here are the full results of the vote VotesCouncil…
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 am
Of the council and etc. 10/10/06
I missed last week’s recounting of the Council winners so with no further ado here are the winners for September 22, 2006. The top council post of the week was You’ll Never Know What We Did by Done With Mirrors an excellent bit of reporting of the …
October 6th, 2006 at 1:29 am
Delinquent, But With Good Excuses, Of Course
As you may know I’m a member of the Watcher’s Council. Every week, each of the Council’s 12 members nominate …