Civil Discourse, factions, and Jon Stewart

There has been a lot of discussion about the intensely bitter debate that we have seen this political season. Is it a sign that our republic is in decline? Can we overcome the insults and personal attacks to come together as a nation? Whose fault is this? Does it take a late-night comic like Jon Stewart to public smack around the “partisan hacks” that masquerade as journalists these days? I hope that all of my current “We the People” students are forming ideas about this topic. The Framers feared this sort of thing would tear apart our republic.

In reality, this nasty tone has been building for years. One factor may be the rise of iconoclastic political commentators. People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ann Coulter and others have developed large audiences by using humor and outrageous statements to make their political points. (Except for Ann Coulter. I've never found her to be funny or clever. My guess is that if she was overweight and her face was more asymmetrical that she would have never landed herself a job as a TV commentator.)

You can make an argument that these entertaining political writers, filmmakers, etc. are doing good because they reach people who might not otherwise be paying attention. Hopefully a lot of those people go beyond the infotainment they provide and search for some real and serious discussion of politics.

Others say that we sowing the seeds of destruction by spreading political hatred. I encourage you to read a piece republished in today’s Seattle Times by Gary Alan Fine. (He is John Evans Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University – a big shout out to Jessica Joslin!) He makes some excellent observations about today’s political climate.

When I was young, my parents insisted that I show respect for the president,whoever he was and whichever party he represented. He was the president of all Americans, and we collectively selected him. My parents were not alone.

The hatred that has spewed across the land — first in conservative "red" territory under Clinton, then in liberal "blue" regions under Bush — has the potential, if allowed to continue, to erode the very possibility of political compromise.

Professor Fine continues:

I believe that our parents were correct for two reasons.

First, a nation consumed with bitter partisanship makes compromise and political transition more difficult. Hatred easily translates into mistrust and suspicion. The remarkable aspect of American politics is that despite a vibrant two-party system,
electoral losers lose gracefully and winners win with admiration for those over
whom they have triumphed. But intense anger in the system has the potential to
make a transfer of power difficult and has the potential to create political
deadlock when such vitriol enters the halls of Congress.

Second, the translation of policy difference into claims of extremism ignores that our two major parties are, in general, quite similar in their policy prescriptions. Both parties support national defense, economic growth through capitalism, protection of the environment, participation in global peacekeeping organizations, quality education and aid to families in need.

He concludes that:

We surely can judge what a politician has done during a political career and what policy prescriptions he or she is proposing, and we can be noisy in our support or rejection. We should judge the recent past and the alternative
futures proposed. This is productive civic engagement; anger and vituperation
over imagined youthful failures is not.

Understanding this may help us step back from the precipice of our politics of passion. Intense anger may satisfy our lust for absolute certainty. But in a society in which we must negotiate, this anger hardens our souls and debases our options. Politics becomes war, not persuasion.

If you'd like to read the piece in its entirety, click on the following link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002070413_polhatred24.html

For a similar view from a Christian pastor, Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, click on http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1025/p09s01-coop.html

Her conclusion is wonderful:

So in a divided nation where passions are running high over war, a tight presidential race, joblessness, and antagonistic media, let us remember the
common good....

But being civil to an adversary does not mean sacrificing core principles, because in challenging an adversary, you can separate what that person says from who they are.

A word to the wise: Reserve your passions for loving, speak forcefully to what you believe, and always reserve for yourself the possibility that you might just be wrong.

What do you think? Follow the directions at the top of my page to post your comments!