Posted on 03/05/2007 9:10:33 PM PST by Valin
I wanted to write something about the degenerative effects of incivility in politics in the wake of the comments and commentary today. Instead, a CQ reader sent me a link to a speech three years ago by Heritage Foundation president Dr. Edwin J. Fuelner. In speaking to the graduating class of Hillsdale College on May 8, 2004, Dr. Fuelner warned the young men and women that our democracy depends on the healthy exchange of ideas and arguments -- and that incivility degrades the social compact on which that debate depends:
This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.
What we see today I am afraid, is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.
Earlier this week I was in London and attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her accession to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. As you know, she is a good friend of Hillsdale College and has visited your campus. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility.
If you want to grasp the nature of civility, try to imagine Lady Thatcher calling someone a "big fat idiot." You will instantly understand that civility isn't an accessory one can put on or take off like a scarf. It is inseparable from the character of great leaders. ...
Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car, or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases.
In my poor way, this was the point I have been trying to make. Readers of this blog have enthusiastically cheered when I criticized the Left for their incivility. For almost a solid week, we debated the Edwards blogger scandal, where Edwards hired two women who routinely used hateful epithets in describing Christians ("Christofascists" and "Godbags", as I recall), and people wanted his hide for it. I blasted Howard Dean for his announcement that he hated Republicans and everything for which we stand. This blog has spent the last 42 months taking on that kind of rhetoric, with thousands of posts and thousands of hours of my time.
That takes little courage, however. How brave is it to criticize those who hate and attack me?
It isn't enough to scold your opponents for their incivility; one has to have the courage to criticize their allies for it as well. That takes more fortitude, because it means alienating those who one presumes have become friends. It means weathering with some grace the kind of comments that people have thrown at me since Friday afternoon. Some may not want to generate that kind of storm, and after today, I don't blame them a bit.
If one wants to change the tone of political discourse, then one has to start with one's self, and hold one's own side accountable for their incivility. If both sides continue hurling rhetorical brickbats until the other side ceases, the incivility will continue forever. And. like Dr. Fuelner, I believe that it will degrade our democracy until the only people talking are the uncivil extremists.
Is that the kind of country we want? Does anyone want to be part of that kind of politics?
I certainly don't. I'm not quitting or going away, either. I will keep on doing what I can to fight for civility in political discourse -- and that means criticizing people on both sides who insist on using incivility to bludgeon their opponents out of the debate.
Note: I closed the comments on the previous thread because I had started to react in kind. I'm going to do better at avoiding that in the future, and I apologize for lashing out at certain commenters.
All other things being equal, the uninformed will likely cheer the one the perceive as winning. In blood sport, that will be the one least shredded.
Amused tolerance does not play well in some circles, there it takes on the appearance of capitulation.
Over and over I have read comments here saying we will need a "strong" president, but when a woman stands up and tags the enemy with a few well placed put-downs, God help anyone standing between the pundits and their keyboards caught in the stampede to decry her remarks and demand she be shunned.
If it were not such a tragedy, it would be hilarious.
If that is the strength the Republican party shows, it is doomed. If those are the largest stones it can muster the catapults will go unslung, get out the pea-shooter, and try the shotgun approach.
I was thinking about that song yesterday. What a fit.
He really is a faggot.
I remember a bunch of angry, not civil, young Republicans storming a place in Florida in 2002 when ALgore and friends, were going to fix the election results. It was a once in a lifetime thrill, I guess. This party has become limp and has no fight. Things just kept deteriorating, even when Republicans had the Congress and the White House. Why? Their civility has turned into caving in to keep the media and libs from attacking them. Such a depressing party. Most conservatives will take a lot...but when the other side crosses that line in the sand, fighting back is sometimes in order.
We can't prejudicially ban words as hateful or impolite!
When we stopped using the terms bastard and bastardry, we didn't help any poor bastards for since then -- for lack of a good word -- the bastard births have become a flood, and with that flood many are hurt. All for lack of the right word.
Consider for the bastard, what are the "new" polite circumlocutions and their effects?
I don't think Ann's remark was worth all the huffing and puffing. That said, the speaker should not become the issues. Conservatives will win with ideas, as Reagan did, not with verbal stunts.
That said, the speaker should not become the issues.
IMO that's what Ann wanted.
Civility has its place in a reasoned debate between gentlemen.
The left is neither civil nor honorable. The goal of the left is to destroy western civilization and replace it with a totalitarian dark age. The left is incapable of logic, reason and civil discourse. Use whatever tools are necessary to protect your family, your community and your mores and beliefs.
President Reagan taught us how to deal with communists and Marxists. He may have talked with them, but he carried big stick behind his back and used it. Look it up.
>>President Reagan taught us how to deal with communists and Marxists. He may have talked with them, but he carried big stick behind his back and used it. Look it up.<<
And the Cold War was won because he implied Gorbachev was a faggot. Right?
Don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Thanks for the link! I agree with this 100%! The comments on this site in recent days and weeks is becoming worse then DU which I thought hit rock bottom.
We need a little Whoop A$$ in our party now and then. Ann provides that. Let's not be a wimpy party. Ann has a great sense of humor. Let's laugh a little. Our panties have gotten much to bunched up over her comments
Confession time: I have not always been the most civil person in replying to those I disagree with here (particularly the Nuke Mecca crowd), I've been trying lately not to flame so much..but it's hard.
Usually the biggest thing I say is stuff it to someone but now I am just ignoring their posts like they don't exist. I can understand in a heated discussion getting into it but not in general posting on a thread -- that is what is getting me.
Am having a hard time believing some of these people are Conservtive or Republican. It is like they are taking advantage of the situation and making it worse. I am on other sites that I moderate where trolls were lying in wait ready to strike for years pretending to be Bush people and as soon as his numbers went down, they started stirring the pot. It is easy on a small group to spot them but not on a site like this. They cause problems and escalate them and that is what I am seeing here IMO.
Frankly, I'd prefer to see less "civility" towards traitors and those who would destroy America's essential character.
I thought I was the only one that thought like that. One of those shirts would be perfect to wear around my county with some people I have come across! :)
When the Democrats won the November elections, al Qaeda cheered, and when Vice President Dick Cheney went to Afghanistan, they tried to blow him up (" 'I Heard A Boom': Veep," Feb. 28).
I wonder what that means, considering that you are known by the friends you keep and the enemies you make.
And they wonder why things are going to hell in a handbasket.
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.