Posted on 07/21/2005 9:06:10 PM PDT by CHARLITE
While some ends may justify some means, in very extreme circumstances, it is still unavoidable that the means we choose will inevitably also transform, to some extent, the ends we achieve.
So, personally, I normally overwhelmingly prefer civil means and civil discourse to their uncivil twins. For the United States, similarly, I believe civil means and civil discourse has served us most well in building a peaceful, prosperous union.
I have faith that most of the American people feel likewise. A recent poll, from Democrat electoral consultants Democracy Corps, shows a stable attachment to Republicans since 2004 (43 percent), but a decline in attachment to Democrats (to 38 percent). This correlates with Democrat leaders' harsh stridency and extremist language in and since the 2004 elections. The Christian Science Monitor quotes pollster Stan Greenberg: "Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more." He comments it’s because Democrats have have "no core set of convictions or point of view." Greenberg's partner James Carville is widely known for his over-the-top rhetoric against Republicans. Methinks Greenberg avoids calling those Democrats like his partner even more at fault. Many Americans may agree with Democrat positions or oppositions, but far fewer are willing to align with potty-mouths.
Encinitas, Calif., where I live, is a surfing beach-town suburb of San Diego. Its populace is a live-and-let-live blend of active and retired professional families, new-agers and aging hippies. Reflecting the demographics, seemingly every block has a pizza parlor and a massage or yoga studio. Perhaps because of our daily priorities and our distance from the heated battles of Washington and New York, the variety and number of civil discussions here is refreshingly high.
Recently, I sat down with my Starbucks Grande Mocha at a sunny patio swept by relaxing sea breezes. I noticed a nearby fellow - middle aged, lanky, with hair past his shoulders - reading a book by Ward Churchill. I asked him whether the depiction of Churchill in the press is accurate, without mentioning what that might be. He replied by not commenting but saying that I should judge for myself, and handed me the book and pointed out a few pages to read that expressed Churchill's context for his remarks unsympathetic to the victims of 9/11.
The Churchill portion started out by briefly recognizing the extremity, impact and unacceptability of the 9/11 atrocity. It then went on at length to a one-sided recitation of every shibboleth of Americans ravaging the world and being the cause of the starving and murder of its peoples, concentrating on charges that this was our unjustifiable practice in Iraq throughout the 1990s.
I commented that Churchill's writing - that the U.S. is the sole source of all evils - is a Franz Fanon-like false victimology mirror image of the worst xenophobic racism expressed by the nuttiest far, far right. My coffee companion did not challenge that point.
We went on to an hour of friendly discussion of everything from past and current status of American Indians, Jews, ranchers, city dwellers, intellectuals and working people. For example, in discussing the misimpressions delivered to the world by ingrown Hollywood, he mentioned, and I agreed about, the frequently negative stereotypes of American Indians in past films and more sympathetic ones today. I mentioned, and he agreed, that the more than 350 films presenting Vietnam veterans as injured victims and suffering pathologies continues to be Hollywood's theme, despite the heavy statistical evidence to the contrary.
In short, we disagreed in a civil fashion about our respective emphases of past and current injustices, and we agreed that civil discourse across viewpoints, as fellow Americans, is the only way to deal with broadening the understanding and reach of valid points that each may have.
He was raised on a remote Western ranch in Idaho, and I in the streets of Brooklyn, N.Y., both breeding grounds of fierce independence, and basic respect for differences. Perhaps that’='s why, aside from our Encinitas environment, we became friendly adversaries, and parted looking forward to getting together again to discuss issues in a civilized manner.
Perhaps the excess insularity of academia or partisan think tanks or scheming political parties or coup-seeking media are not well serving the need of America for civil discourse, to even stand a chance of finding common grounds to preserve our union and improve our conditions.
Bruce Kesler is a regular contributor to The Augusta Free Press. Read past columns on-line at
http://www.augustafreepress.com/kesler.
Comments: Bnksd1@aol.com
We should all be civil when a liberal says anything but tell me what happens when a conservative says something the left or media doesn't like.
A great story about one of the fundamental reasons for the Greatness of America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.