My short post from the other day got noticed by a few folks over at Whiskey Fire, so they responded to my brief observation with a few observations of their own.
At the risk of getting completely flamed, let me try to explain myself. As I've said before in this blog, I’m not about “civility†– that word makes me think of Miss Manners and pinkies sticking out. I’m all for a good rant when it’s called for -- don’t throw me in with Forni. I'm sympathetic to Silber when he says "...in these times, harsh and ugly language must sometimes be used to describe harsh and ugly truths."
But my point is that we live in a divided country, and if we can’t learn to work together with at least some of the people who disagree with us, then this is going to turn into one big, ugly street fight. And all that will happen is we’ll trade punches below the belt and reinforce the hate we have for each other. And we’ll all lose.
When I talk about civil dialogue I’m not hyping some white-washed 1950s nostalgia – there is ugliness in every age, and that era had more than its share, as Nim points out. But just ten years ago, pre-Bush, we were in much better shape. Our national dialogue wasn’t dominated by the Hannity-Franken-Coulter spew that passes for news these days. We had some leaders who worked together in good faith to tackle big problems. Sure, there were some hate-mongers trying to drag things into the gutter, but they didn’t control the news cycles. It wasn’t all happy agreement land, but it wasn’t the nihilist blood sport we have today.
It used to be that the only screamers out there were jokes like Morton Downey Jr, the John Birch Society, and the Communist Party, and they were pretty much side shows. Now we’ve got screamers on cable, talk radio, and the web 24 hours a day. They’re kept alive by our dollars and our eyeballs. Ratings feed their bottomless cauldrons of fear and loathing. The only way to minimize their harm is to reject their bile by turning them off. Supporting the screamers on our side only turns up the volume of theirs.
What makes this country unique is that fact that even when we disagree with every fiber of our being, the core principles of the Constitution still undergird us. Power shifts from one side to the other every few years and no shots are fired. Even if we think the other side is completely wrong we’ll still respect the victory if they win the vote fair and square. How much can our national dialogue deteriorate before it starts to threaten that bedrock foundation that our country is built upon? Are we willing to risk that?
By all means, rant and rave. There’s emotional honesty in anger. It’s funny to make the ant poop joke and the masturbation joke, etc. But understand that there’s an exact copy of you on the other side of the virtual aisle, ranting and raving and demonizing your perspective like you’re doing to his (and making his own funny ant poop and masturbation jokes)… and if the two of you ever got into a dialogue you would achieve nothing other than screaming yourselves hoarse. What’s the point? It’s like the dudes hanging outside the Gas ‘n Sip in Say Anything.
Civility and honesty are not mutually exclusive. It may feel viscerally satisfying to pepper your points with f-bombs, but it doesn’t make what you say any more true. There is something satisfying about listening to someone who doesn’t give a damn about what other people think, because that’s a way you can sense that they aren’t spinning you. Look at Kinky Friedman for a good example. But don’t confuse that honesty with being right. Kinky would probably be useless as governor.
“Negative campaign ads and slander will end when they are no longer effective, and not a second sooner.†I totally agree. And in this election, I think we’ve crossed the rubicon. People are tired of it – the lies, the smears, the hypocrisy. So now we’ve got to find a way out. Americans are hungry to put this ugly chapter behind us. The only way to do it is to marginalize the forces of hate and rebuild upon the foundation of what holds us together: a shared desire to work to make the US and the world a better place. Don’t allow yourself cynicism deep enough to believe the other side doesn’t share that goal.
Global yokel’s historical contextualization was very well taken. However, he says: “Sometimes civility requires one side to be crushed, then offered the chance to come back under a new set of rules: rules in which it's possible to play nice.†So to follow the thinking, we have to destroy the other side so that we can have the power to impose new rules upon them – civility on our terms. And then, “the GOP wants liberal politics exterminated. Its rhetoric and actions make this clear…†So the GOP wants to destroy us as well. This vision of domination over the other side, so common throughout history, is an absolute fantasy. Do you really think the other side is going to be “beaten†by our superior argumentation, and that they’ll eventually cry “uncle†and give us the power? No… I’d argue that all the fighting just reinforces the polarization and division. And the argument “we have to be obnoxious now so that we can be civil later†seems pretty twisted around the axle.
Look, do whatever you like. Rage away. I admit it – it’s fun and entertaining to read your rants. But is that how we want our government to work? Is that the way to figure out the way forward? Righteous anger notwithstanding, we’ve got a lot of important things we have to deal with. Defeating the other side with your razor sharp wit and bringing them around to your perspective is an illusion. It’ll never happen. (Could a well written blog post convert you to conservatism?) And even with Iraq, let’s have our moment of I-told-you-so self righteousness, but then let’s quickly get back to the task at hand, which is figuring out where to go from here.
Alright, I’m ready. Roast me over the coals. James had it right: unsheathe your dagger definitions.
(BTW, I’m with you on the Style section. My wife pointed the article out to me, otherwise it would have slipped right by. It’s the newsprint equivalent to Gray’s Anatomy.)