In Search of Civility
And stay right here 'cause these are the good old days. -- Carly Simon, "Anticipation"
As we’ve been told repeatedly by our civil president, his civil cohorts in Congress and the civil members of the media, we need more civility in our politics. However, while considering some of the ways in which I could temper my incivility with the milk of human kindness, it occurred to me that I wasn’t sure which era in our political history we should attempt to emulate.
It certainly wouldn’t be the 18th century. It doesn’t take a lot of research to learn that the times just before, during and after this country’s founding were some of the least civil you can imagine. The name-calling and character assassinations were mind-boggling. Pamphlets, speeches and newspapers routinely characterized political opponents in terms that would have made former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann sound like Mister Rogers.
The 19th century was also a bubbling cauldron of anger and rage as the country suffered through growing pains, especially on the question of slavery. There was Bleeding Kansas, Harpers Ferry and, finally, the Civil War which, by its very name, disqualifies that period as our civility standard. What about the years after the Civil War as the country reunited? Certainly that must have been a time filled with hearty handshakes and warm embraces. Well, that period of civility brought us unprecedented political corruption and the assassination of three presidents in the 36 years from 1865 to 1901.
Maybe the 20th century is where we should be looking. There were a couple of world wars during which our common cause might have softened the tone a bit, but World War III might be a high price to pay for getting along a little better. The 1950s were a bit more placid, but a lot of folks were being accused of praising Joe Stalin and joining the Communist Party. No one wants to go back to that, especially those who were praising Joe Stalin and joining the Communist Party.
The 60s? Are you kidding? A decade of violence and tragedy, although at least the unrest was described as civil. The 70s? Nixon, Watergate; I don’t think so. The Reagan years weren’t bad even if some might have called the president a war-monger or a dunce. (At least Clark Clifford said he was an amiable one. I guess that’s sort of civil.)
How about the Clinton era? I don’t recall much civility regarding Bill and Hillary and Monica and all the other intrigue of the day. It’s also hard to characterize George W. Bush’s detractors as civil, unless you discount allegations of election theft, war for oil and intellectual incompetence, not to mention a few Hollywood films trashing him or fantasizing about his death.
So where do we look to find this elusive civility in our political discourse? Well, gentle reader, I believe we’re already there. Despite all the hand-wringing, our politicians are more civil than ever. Political correctness demands the careful choice of words and immediate apologies for their unauthorized use. What passes for “hate-filled” speech today would seem pretty tame by almost any historical standard. It might not be good news for the president and others looking to cash in on the “overheated rhetoric” talk, but when it comes to political civility, these are the good old days.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: In Search of Civility
In November 2010, the Right slaughtered the Left in the midterm election.
For the last two years, the Left has characterized the Right as angry. The Left dismissed the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Fox News (and any other opponent it could think of) as angry racist homophobes who are “dog whistling” to the psychopaths lurking among us. Nice civility there. But yet …
In November 2010, the Right slaughtered the Left in the midterm election.
How to explain it? After all, successful governance is rewarded with election success, isn’t it? Didn’t the Left “save” millions of jobs? Hasn’t their healthcare package rescued the economy? Haven’t they restored America to its international prominence? Enemies respect us again, don’t they?
In November 2010, the Right slaughtered the Left in the midterm election.
Why haven’t they been rewarded for their brilliant governance? Aha! Of course! The Right must have whipped up so much anger that the electorate is distracted. All will be well if we can get the Right to stop distracting the people with anger.
“Stop being so angry! Be civil, so you can see how well we’ve governed!”
Edited on Jan 23, 2011 at 6:33amMay '10
Re: In Search of Civility
I imagine Alex Trebek will think this is pretty damn rich, after all the trash talk he's had to take from Sajak.
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
When the left does it, it's speaking truth to power.
When we do it, we're just a bunch of angry white guys.
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
If I'm not mistaken, it was Joseph Goebbels who invented the game show....
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
What confuses me here is that Pat Sajak has always seemed to me a perfectly civil man in all his writing. He is certainly right that incivility has been with us in American politics across the decades. Unless I am mistaken, however, Mr. Sajak himself endeavors to argue honorably, without descending to ad hominem or going on intemperate rants. Why is this?
I suspect it is because he actually does find something worthy in civility.
I go back to this exchange:
MARK LEVIN: "Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?"
CALLER: "Yes."
MARK LEVIN: "Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."
Is there nothing wrong with that? If your kid spoke to a woman that way would you reprimand him?
Of course, folks on the left can be just as uncivil. Hurray for Keith Olbermann's retirement.
But it seems to me that the right is being silly mocking civility just because their ideological opponents have suddenly started liking it.
Sure, point out their hypocrisy, and defend your own side's civility. But don't give up on the concept.
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Conor Friedersdorf:
I go back to this exchange:
MARK LEVIN: "Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?"
CALLER: "Yes."
MARK LEVIN: "Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."
Is there nothing wrong with that? If your kid spoke to a woman that way would you reprimand him?
Of course, folks on the left can be just as uncivil. Hurray for Keith Olbermann's retirement.
But it seems to me that the right is being silly mocking civility just because their ideological opponents have suddenly started liking it.
Sure, point out their hypocrisy, and defend your own side's civility. But don't give up on the concept. · Jan 22 at 2:34pm
I cannot listen to Levin. It's a pity he has so little self-discipline on the air, because he is knowledgeable and his books are a valuable contribution.
It seems to me that his anger is born out of resentment. He didn't go off the deep end until Glenn Beck - whom he openly loathes - eclipsed his celebrity.
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Well put, Pat. From the most civil man in public life.
What the left has done here is to - as usual - actively seek to rub out meaningful distinctions because they are inconvenient. There is an important difference between spirited, noisy, even martially-themed, political give and take on one side, and scurrilous. libelous and violence promoting rhetoric on the other. For most of our history that distinction was pretty clear. The left now conflates them.
I agree with Pat wholeheartedly. These are remarkably civil times in which we live. But the left believe to their very souls that the right generally - and the Tea Party in particular - have deeply nefarious motives. Regardless of what we actually say or do, they have to believe that we mean evil. Because they lack the imagination to understand that we could come to such benighted views in good faith.
Nov '10
Re: In Search of Civility
The greatest danger to our republic is not incivility, but incoherence. The inability in our politically aware citizens to frame and present an argument is frightening.
I find it depressing that, outside of a few sites such as this, there is no opportunity and no desire for anything other than ad hominem attacks and vulgar shrillness. This is the norm now amongst the right and the left.
The other side is stupid, evil, moronic, and retarded. Our side is so right that no defense is needed other than shaking our naked bottoms in response to whatever is written or said. That's not incivility, its asininity.
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
I had to tell my young son the meaning of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
We recently watched some short video clips of when he was younger, and in several of them he is dancing randomly to music, which he has lost the habit of doing. All of a sudden, nostalgia (I guess) came over him and he wanted to do it again.
But when I tried to put on some music for him, nothing hit the mood just right for him to dance. He then wanted me to play the music he had seen in the video clips, in the order in which he had done them in the past. (!) We don't have that music anymore so I had to tell him sorry.
We so often romanticize the past, the future, or someone else's situation. But if we were there (as we actually were in the past, or will be in the future) we might be pining for today or for our own situation.
It's best to learn to be content.
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
walking: The greatest danger to our republic is not incivility, but incoherence. The inability in our politically aware citizens to frame and present an argument is frightening.
I find it depressing that, outside of a few sites such as this, there is no opportunity and no desire for anything other than ad hominem attacks and vulgar shrillness. This is the norm now amongst the right and the left.
The other side is stupid, evil, moronic, and retarded. Our side is so right that no defense is needed other than shaking our naked bottoms in response to whatever is written or said. That's not incivility, its asininity.
I used to visit sites like democraticundeground and daily kos, just to see what the other side was saying/thinking. But I stopped because, though I did see some reasoned arguments, a large volume of it consisted of dismissing the other side's public figures using extremely vulgar terms which I cannot repeat here. Then the utterer would figuratively strut about as if they were so clever for having used the term. Utterly disgusting.
And I agree, it's extremely disappointing to see some of the same on "our" side.
Jun '10
Re: In Search of Civility
I'm tired of getting punched in the nuts. When the left sends the flag of civility up the pole, they're just preparing us for another sucker punch. I'm tired of it. We're dealing with an opposition that believes the ends justify the means. They have no honor. None. Let's take the gloves off and brawl. Bare knuckles. Let's have at it. The left is on the ropes. Sixty-three seats lost in the House. Now is not the time to pull our punches. Let's finish this fight with a knock-out.
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Patrick Shanahan: Well put, Pat. From the most civil man in public life.
What the left has done here is to - as usual - actively seek to rub out meaningful distinctions because they are inconvenient. There is an important difference between spirited, noisy, even martially-themed, political give and take on one side, and scurrilous. libelous and violence promoting rhetoric on the other. For most of our history that distinction was pretty clear. The left now conflates them.
I agree with Pat wholeheartedly. These are remarkably civil times in which we live. But the left believe to their very souls that the right generally - and the Tea Party in particular - have deeply nefarious motives. Regardless of what we actually say or do, they have to believe that we mean evil. Because they lack the imagination to understand that we could come to such benighted views in good faith. · Jan 22 at 4:34pm
It is actually worse than that. The Left engages in ad hominem attack because their base is so hideously miseducated as to miss the emptiness of that rhetoric. The moral imperative in the face of slander and libel is not always a mild harumph. WFB vs Gore Vidal.
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Although we tend to forget, the year 1919 was a real low point in American history.
Dozens of bombs were mailed to prominent figures.
Sep '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Conor Friedersdorf:
You seem to be a johnny-one-note on this issue. I heard this quote live and the woman he was talking to was singularly obnoxious. But stipulating that Levin was over the top here, why are you so fixated on him and civility on *our* side?
Levin talks for three hours (really two minus commercials) per night, 5 days a week 50 weeks per year. That is a total of 500 hours per year. And since this happened I think 2 years ago at least, we are talking about something you found in 1000 hours of commentary by Levin that you still can't help but be fixated on.
Now Levin is hated by the left. He gets death threats. They say all kinds of mean and nasty things about him in public, and to him via email. This woman was one of the haters and he went off on her. So what?
Are you telling us, Conor, dear man, that if we somehow could police *our* sides speech and all be Michael Medveds (who also gets death threats) that it will change anything? That this would somehow convert people to our side?.
continued
Sep '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Civility is vastly overrated and many here are onto the tactics of the left in this regard, not to mention the double standards.
How about civility when it comes to content?
Is it really civil speech to politely say that George Bush knew about 9/11? Is that your definition of civility, Conor?
How about this for your style of civility: You are a very nice man. I believe you love kittens and dogs and have wonderful family and friends, but I surmise you are too smart to believe some of the things you say, and are strangely focused on transgressions of your purported side. I simply can't believe you are that naive, therefore I have to conclude that you are not truthfully representing yourself politically. All best wishes to you and yours....
Jul '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Pat Sajak:
So where do we look to find this elusive civility in our political discourse? ·
I looked in 1984.
In NewSpeak Civility means Conservatives Shut Up.
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Franco:
Are you telling us, Conor, dear man, that if we somehow could police *our* sides speech and all be Michael Medveds (who also gets death threats) that it will change anything? That this would somehow convert people to our side?.
Jan 23 at 4:33am
Well yes, I am.
Sep '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Conor Friedersdorf
Franco:
Are you telling us, Conor, dear man, that if we somehow could police *our* sides speech and all be Michael Medveds (who also gets death threats) that it will change anything? That this would somehow convert people to our side?.
Jan 23 at 4:33am
Well yes, I am. · Jan 23 at 7:57pm
Pretty naive, Conor, on several levels. First, you aren't going to get Levin or Rush or anyone else to change. You realize that, right? You realize that you and David Frum and others have no audience or followers other than leftists who also would like these guys to shut up. Even if you could get prominent Republicans to go against them, they would then lose their power, since so very many people who tend to vote Republican see things much the same way as Rush and Levin. The fact remains that the Republican Party depends on these voters and it better satisfy these voters or it will lose.
Naive because it depends on the belief that there are a good number, aye, a preponderant number, of thoughtful independents who are itching to vote for Republicans if only they would moderate their tone.
Sep '10
Re: In Search of Civility
The Tea Party movement just repudiated everything operatives and functionaries like David Frum or so-called moderates stand for. It is naive to advocate for moderation to people who have just decided once and for all, that this tactic is futile. You may as well go preach to mullahs in Iran or to Hamas or to Israeli settlers in the West Bank that they should tone their voices down so as to convert the other side's moderates.
It is naive as well to believe that there are enough voters out there who would pull the lever for a Republican were you to actually succeed in muzzling all the talk radio and various bomb throwers.
Naive because the left moves the goal posts and invents narratives. You don't see that Conor? Just last week, the MSM, yes, the mainstream media that dominates the zeitgeist, marked ordinary campaign speech and practices, used by both sides as exclusively used by Republicans with the result of inciting a madman with zero evidence for either premise. Getting Levin to stop yelling at hateful obnoxious yentas once every two years is going to change that?
I still can't believe you are this naive...
May '10
Re: In Search of Civility
Mark Levin really irritates me. Sure, he's right on many issues but does he need to be so boorish? No. I can't usually stand listening to him. I don't see anything wrong with calling him out on it, as well as the nastiness on the left.