Whether they rally behind Fox News’ Glenn Beck to “Restore Honor” or Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart to “Restore Sanity,” Americans agree on one thing: our political system has a civility problem.
Four out of five Americans, regardless of party or religious affiliation, think the lack of respectful discourse in our political system is a serious problem, according to a PRRI/RNS Religion News Poll released Thursday (Nov. 11).
The findings echo sentiments expressed by a range of religious leaders, including Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary and author of “Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World,” and Rabbi Steve Gutow, president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
If civility is silence in the face of destruction then silence is not golden – it is yellow.
Don
If Americans are upset by current discourse, a couple of things are obvious:
a) they have no appreciation of American history and are thus completely ignorant of numerous past examples of profoundly harsher discourse.
b) they’ve not spent any time in a parliamentary democracy nor listened to Question Period or Question Time on a regular basis.
c) the fact that discourse is harsh does not make it false.
The real problem is that our political, bureaucrat, media, and academic class — the self-designated and self-absorbed elite — are of such abysmally poor quality across the board. This is crushingly obvious on the Democrat side, which already dominates three of four elitist domains, as well as within the Democrat portion of the political realm. It is significantly better, though still not good, on the Republican side.
With the exception of Reagan, we have had a series of quite weak presidents for nearly the last 40 years. For the last 20 years they have all been exceptionally weak and ill-prepared for the office, and it shows.
You must go back to Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan (1849 to ’61) to encounter such a similar run of dithering weaklings, and the consequences of their weakness were of historically devastating dimensions.
The simple sorry fact of today’s politics is that Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson would have absolutely no hope of receiving the Democrat nomination for President, and the 1932 FDR would be touch-and-go. Wilson OTOH would feel completely at home in today’s Democrat party.
Grover Cleveland … would not. He issued hundreds of vetoes, most with the simple comment “There is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress power to legislate in this matter.”
When you once again have a Housemember coming into the Senate and beating a Senator unconscious with a cane — as happened to Senator Sumner in 1856 — then you can talk to me about harsh discourse.
If these people were asking for “civility” in political debate before that Arizona shooting, that would be one thing. Otherwise, they are participating in the vile lie that “vitriolic rhetoric” was responsible for the tragedy. And who is responsible for the “vitriolic rhetoric” directed against the congresswoman? The conservatives, of course. Can discourse get more uncivil then implicate your political opponents in the murder of six people?
The New York Times has offered a sort of retraction (“mistakes might have been made”). I wonder if Sarah Palin could bring down the gray rag and Paul Krugman with a libel lawsuit? It seems that 35% or more of Democrats believe that Sarah Palin’s rhetoric contributed to the unhinged murderer.
While we’re on the topic of which historical Democrats might still receive their party’s nomination for President, consider Andrew Jackson, well known for harsh discourse. This is a long but very worthwhile read, if only for its relevance to the political arguments of our times. [emphasis added]
Jackson wrote this farewell address in 1837, the first year of what was unarguably the worst depression in America’s history. Jackson had his flaws, and rather serious ones at that, but he saw clearly. Unfortunately, he would have absolutely no chance of being nominated today by the Democrats who still claim their political lineage from this man.
[blockquote] It is well known that there have always been those amongst us who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government, and experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this Government to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers or supposed advantages or temporary circumstances shall ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the General Government will before long absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have in effect but one consolidated government. [/blockquote]
Which political party claims this guy as one of their founders, again?
[blockquote] There is, perhaps, not one of the powers conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the tax gatherer. Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse of the power of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them, and in such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants of the Government. [/blockquote]
Does this sound at all like today’s Democrats? Because he was writing, this is much more circumspect than many of his speeches on the same matters … which were criticized for being “harsh, unkind, and unruly.”
[blockquote] Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find there is a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are continually at work to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public service, and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining revenue that could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress, and in order to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal system of taxation extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to squander the money and to purchase support. Thus [b] one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money [/b] for internal improvements. [/blockquote]
After warning that Congress had passed a very high tax, Jackson — like Kennedy a century and a quarter later — warned of the dangers. Apart from some linguistic differences, It could have been written yesterday.
[blockquote] Designing politicians will support it to conciliate their favor and to obtain the means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters; and since the people have decided that the Federal Government can not be permitted to employ its income in internal improvements, efforts will be made to seduce and mislead the citizens of the several States by holding out to them the deceitful prospect of benefits to be derived from a surplus revenue collected by the General Government and annually divided among the States; and [b] if, encouraged by these fallacious hopes, the States should disregard the principles of economy which ought to characterize every republican government, and should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources, they will before long find themselves oppressed with debts which they are unable to pay,[/b] and the temptation will become irresistible to support [high taxes]. Do not allow yourselves, my fellow-citizens, to be misled on this subject. The Federal Government can not collect a surplus for such purposes without violating the principles of the Constitution and assuming powers which have not been granted. It is, moreover, a system of injustice, and if persisted in will inevitably lead to corruption, and must end in ruin. [b]The revenue will be drawn from the pockets of the people–from the farmer, the mechanic, and the laboring classes of society; but who will receive it when distributed, where it is to be disposed of by leading politicians, who have friends to favor and political partisans to gratify ?[/b]
There is but one safe rule, and that is to confine the General Government rigidly within the sphere of its appropriate duties. It has no power to raise a revenue or impose taxes except for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution, and if its income is found to exceed these wants it should be forthwith reduced and the burden of the people so far lightened. [/blockquote]
“Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson would have absolutely no hope of receiving the Democrat nomination for President,”
And yet it is to their memories of the 50s and 60s — Truman through Johnson — that many people are comparing the present and finding the present uncivil, not to their memories of the 1850s. Their memories may be playing tricks on them, however, or it may just be that the bile was not as widely reported and distributed as it is today. My guess is that there was some pretty ugly stuff going on in the cloakroom of congress during the civil rights movement, but we never heard about it.
One change is not so much political as societal — as the media protected us from knowing the truth about our boozing baseball heroes, so they protected us from the sausage making side of politics. Nowdays, not so much. And my Republican grandparents would have been as appalled as anybody by a congress person yelling “you lie” during a State of the Union speech, no matter what they thought of the president. But again, nowdays, not so much.
[i]And yet it is to their memories of the 50s and 60s—Truman through Johnson—that many people are comparing the present and finding the present uncivil, not to their memories of the 1850s.[/i]
If so, their memories are deeply flawed.
*Gruesome union thuggery, particularly in coal, steel, and transport. Equally gruesome union-busting efforts.
*Blacklists, Hiss hearings, McCarthy, House unAmerican Activities Committee, etc. etc. Go read some of those transcripts.
*Vicious dogs, firehoses, church-burnings, cross-burnings, drive-by shootings, and lynchings … all through the ’50s and ’60s.
*Frequent political assassinations and attempts.
*Numerous race riots, looting, arson, and police brutality.
*The 1968 Democrat convention.
[b]’Civility’ in American politics sure isn’t what it used to be. And it never was.[/b] These days the calls for ‘civility’ a little more than a poorly veiled attempt to shut down one side of the political spectrum by shaming them into complicity.
Want a lesson in civility? Tune in the the House of Commons.
Those calling for “civility” (code word for “waahh, you’re being mean to us because you oppose our policies!”) had little use for it during the Bush administration when accusing him of being a mentally handicapped greedy warmongering racist who was often portrayed as a cross between a primate and Hitler. Now these same folks and their backers want to whine about civility in public discourse? Ha!
3. I agree with Rob Roy.
The most uncivil public act is to falsely accuse someone of direct or indirect participation in a murder, especially an assassination.
wow, I think the posts so far have adequately dismissed the call for “civility” as having any validity. To borrow on a phrase, calls for “civility,” like patriotism, are the last refuge of scoundrels….
What is civil discourse? It can be epitomized by the captains of a football team shaking hands before a game or boxers shaking hands before a match. You don’t have to stop doing your job, lir down and be rolled over, alter your core beliefs or even like the other person. In political, or church, debate, what is uncivil is (1) yelling and/or cursing and (2) attacking someone personally. I think there is alot of that going around on both sides. But as noted above, its nothing new in our politics. Interestingly, the same poeple who are now calling for civil discourse are the same ones who personally attacked George Bush daily.
[blockquote] In political, or church, debate, what is uncivil is (1) yelling and/or cursing and (2) attacking someone personally. [/blockquote]
I agree wholly with (1). (2) may depend on the context of the deabate, and I would add one more; threatening to assault or kill someone. This third area is where I think current political debate has occasionally crossed over the line.
[blockquote]Interestingly, the same people who are now calling for civil discourse are the same ones who personally attacked George Bush daily. [/blockquote]
Do you have an example of this? i.e. can you give me an instance of a person who is calling for civility today not acting civilly in the past.
I think the liberal elites are getting beat in the market place of ideas and so are trying to use “civility” to silence one end of the spectrum. The folks arguing for civility seem to be the same folks who wrap themselves in the flag when it is their speech. If they are willing to say the following is a mistake, I am interested.
“[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.”
U.S. Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
#12–Where were you from 2000 to 2009? Almost everyday the media and many Democrats were saying awful things about Bush and Cheney. They were called an illegal regime, baby killers, stupid idiots, election stealers, gay haters (which was interesting since Cheney’s daughter is gay), racists who wanted all the black people in New Orleans to die, evil, lazy (becuase Bush took too many vacations, unlike Mr. Obama), conspirators who actually planned 9/11, cowards because they stayed out of DC after 9/11, prosecutors of an illegal war, fabricators of false intelligence about WMD’s..need I go on.
I think I generally know what makes a person a liberal in the eyes of the the right and what makes a person a conservative in the eyes of the left; but what makes them an elite?
#12. Here’s one (rather prominent example):
[url=http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/01/and-speaking-of-krugman-and-double-standards-at-the-times.html]double standards[/url]
It describes how a congressman who was asked by the NY Times to write an op-ed on civility was suggesting (last year) that the Republican candidate for Florida’s governor be taken out and “shot”. It is kind of hard to believe that those people have completely lost their sense of irony.
15. Rasmussen Reports has a definition of the [i]political class[/i] as distinct from the popular class:
[blockquote]Its a category created by Rasmussen. They ask those polled three questions and they are put in the category based on how they answer. The questions are below and here is the link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ideology/55_of_americans_are_populist_7_support_the_political_class
The questions used to calculate the Index are:
— Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more – the American people or America’s political leaders?
— Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?
— Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?
To create a scale, each response earns a plus 1 for the populist answer, a minus 1 for the political class answer, and a 0 for not sure.
Those who score 2 or higher are considered a populist or part of the Mainstream. Those who score -2 or lower are considered to be aligned with the Political Class. Those who score +1 or -1 are considered leaners in one direction or the other.
In practical terms, if someone is classified with the Mainstream, they agree with the mainstream view on at least two of the three questions and don’t agree with the Political Class on any.[/blockquote]
#14, I never said there were no people who were uncivil in the Bush Cheney years. I was asking for an example of people who were uncivil who were now calling for civility. Its easy to identify a class of people and accuse them of hypocrisy, but more difficult when you have to produce the evidence. Its easy to say Democrats were uncivil during the Bush years and Republicans are uncivil during the Obama years, but that is certainly not uniformly true.
Also, I cannot agree all the things you accuse Bush opponents of saying are necessarily uncivil. For example I was a moderate Republican who was initially pro-war, but ultimately came to the conclusion the war was a huge mistake and that Bush and Cheney did most likely fabricate some of the WMD intelligence or at least turn a blind eye to evidence that did not support a desired result. Does that make me uncivil? The phrase Baby killer is used by pro life groups all the time. Are they uncivil?
I think we cross the civility line when we use phrases that are subjective and judgmental, or objectively not true. Like calling Bush evil, coward, and lazy or calling Obama Hitler, Fascists, tyrant or elite; or when we use language that is vulgar; or when we make opened or veiled threats of violence.
Unfortunately, we going to have to listen to this cry for civility until January, 2013. Then, with the new Republican president and Republicans in control of both houses of congress, these new rules for civility will go right in the trash for both the media and screamers on the left.
#18…..
I assume by that, you mean like when Obama himself says that he “needs to find out who’s ass to kick”. Or when he states that “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun”. Stuff like that?
#20 Yes thats exactly what I mean.
[blockquote]15. Mitchell wrote:
I think I generally know what makes a person a liberal in the eyes of the the right and what makes a person a conservative in the eyes of the left; but what makes them an elite? [/blockquote]
I believe the answer is hubris and snobbery over (a) educational or academic status (b) urban dweller status (c) conformity with mainstream media’s worldview, which they perceive as widely held opinion (d) any combination of the previous three.
There may also be a financial component to their elitism, since urban dwellers and those with higher levels of education tend to earn more than the average person.
There may be a moral superiority component as well, based on false religious teachings, deconstructed and reinterpreted (or just misunderstood) readings of Scripture, and populist appeals to prooftexts such as “judge not” and “we’re all God’s children”.
What ever the cause, Liberal elitism is extremely repugnant to folks like me.
BTW…the Right has these type of folk too. They are called “Rockefeller Republicans”. The Left elitests are typically (in my circles) called “Limousine Liberals”. Both are despised as being smug, arrogant, and out of touch with “real” people…the “Joe Six-packs” of the world.
Here’s a video of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V44sdAX5i-c ]Keith Olberman[/url] with some of his copious hate filled racist rhetoric. It includes a letter from the ADL to stop showing a mock Bill O’Reilly doing the Nazi salute. He never apologized for that nor any of the other examples. Yet he made a impassioned appeal for [i]civil discourse[/i].
How about Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas who refers to religious conservatives as the “American Taliban”? He actually uses the term “f-bomb American Taliban”. Is that civil discourse? Yet, he was one of the first (with Paul Krugman) who came out with the line that the “hateful rhetoric” was responsible for the tragedy.
And we have the great uniter:
[blockquote] ** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gunâ€
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!â€
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!â€
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hardâ€
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combatâ€
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.â€
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.â€
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.â€[/blockquote]
Links to references of quotes [url=http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/did-barack-obama-cause-the-shootings-yesterday-in-tucson/]here[/url].
So talk about civil discourse six months from now, otherwise you are participating in one the most cynical, vile examples of yellow journalism that I have ever known, using the tragedy for political purposes.
Yes, so correct, Mitchell and robroy, all good comments. I will be civil and completely disagree with the present administration and I will never be quiet. When they stop making my great-grandchildren slaves to their debt is when I will be quiet.
[blockquote] So talk about civil discourse six months from now, otherwise you are participating in one the most cynical, vile examples of yellow journalism that I have ever known, using the tragedy for political purposes. [/blockquote]
No, I am not. We were not discussing Arizona or what caused the event. We were discussing what is civil and what is uncivil. The discussion had nothing to do with Arizona, other than perhaps we would not even be discussing the issue if that event had not occurred.
I have believed for a long time the political discourse in this country has become filled with hate, resentment, and anger; which I believe is a result of stereotypes and misinformation, fueled by networks and commentators who make money by selling fear, hate, and division. I think that is bad for the country. You may think that is ok for the country. So be it. At least we discussed it, civilly.
Mitchell, you say “The discussion had nothing to do with Arizona, other than perhaps we would not even be discussing the issue if that event had not occurred.” But that’s the whole point! Political discussion of any kind, civil or not, had NOTHING to do with the mentally-ill shooter in Arizona. But that was the storyline latched onto by the MSM in order to paint conservatives as belligerent and “uncivil” – they reiterated it day after day, even once the shooter was definitively shown to be mentally ill and not politically motivated.
So Arizona is the entire discussion! There was no discussion about “civil discourse” when Gov. Palin was hung in effigy several years ago – then it was all about the right to free speechc. There was no discussion about “civil discourse” when G.W. Bush was constantly compared to Hitler and the devil. This is ALL about Arizona and its appropriation by the left to keep the right quiet – using innocent deaths to do it.
Judgement on “civility” requires context. If you and I disagree on the desert after dinner and I excoriate you with a string of 4 letter words at high volume, we can agree that is not “civil”. On the other hand, if you and your buddies are trying to take away my country, my way of life, steal my hard earned money to give it to others, then you will pray that all I come after you with is a string of 4 letter words. And you can call me “un-civil” the whole time I am doing anything required to take my country back; for me, my children, and my 3 beautiful grandchildren.
Branford, if you want to discuss the mentally ill shooter in Arizona, and how to avoid this type of thing in the future, I am all for that. That was not the topic of this article. Nor was the topic of the article whether some people were using the events in Arizona politically. The article was about Americans seeing civility in American politics as a problem. No one in this discussion was bashing the right, and I certainly would never hold myself out as able to articulate the points of the left. Yes some people on the left are using this opportunity to bash the right. Yes some people on the right are using this opportunity to bash the left for bashing the right.
You say there was no discussion of “civil discourse” when G.W. Bush was. . . ” I disagree. Many people have discussed the state of civil discourse in this country for a long time. Its just that nobody on the left or the right was listening; or they were and did not care. Maybe they still aren’t and don’t.
[blockquote]No, I am not. We were not discussing Arizona or what caused the event. We were discussing what is civil and what is uncivil. The discussion had nothing to do with Arizona, other than perhaps we would not even be discussing the issue if that event had not occurred.[/blockquote]
This is naive. Paul Krugman, just two hours, after the shooting began the leftist attack on Palin – that hateful rhetoric and the cross-hairs map contributed to the tragedy. That was shown to be a complete lie. But then they attacked her for defending herself. The result of a CNN poll is that
[blockquote][i]QUESTION: Overall, how much do you blame each of the following for the shooting in Arizona — a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?[/i]
“The use of harsh rhetoric and violent metaphors by politicians and commentators”: Great deal 25% … Moderate amount 23% … Not much 17% … Not at all 32%[/blockquote]
So 48% think that violent rhetoric (read Sarah Palin) contributed. Of course, Loughner’s beef with Giffords began in 2007 when she didn’t answer some crazy question correctly in his deranged viewpoint. The continued discussion of the “problem of uncivil discourse” is helping to continue the lie. And that is despicable. It is the height of uncivil discourse.
Mitchell – do you have any references to the talk about civility during the Bush years? I would be interested in reading them.
You say in #29: “The article was about Americans seeing civility in American politics as a problem.” You still haven’t acknowledged that this is only being discussed because the MSM latched onto this as the reason for the Arizona shooting – so I go back to the idea that this is ONLY being discussed because the media tried to attach what they perceived as “uncivil” political discourse on the right (didn’t mention those on the left) to the shooting. That is the ONLY reason this topic has even been brought up -even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. American politics has always been rough and tumble, so why bring this up now? Because the Repubs won in the mid-terms, so now the media (and the Dems) want us all to be “civil” – sorry, ain’t gonna happen.
[blockquote] … if you and your buddies are trying to take away my country, my way of life, steal my hard earned money to give it to others, then you will pray that all I come after you with is a string of 4 letter words.[/blockquote]
Thank you Capt Deacon Warren.