Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
It has become wildly popular these days to condemn the “tone” of political discourse in this country. While I am always in favor of any promotion of treating others with civility and respect, few things rub me the wrong way quite like news pundits and commentators wringing their hands over a situation they, in large part, helped to create. My problem with such calls for “playing nice” as we have heard in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting is the same problem I have with all misplaced moral indignation.
Whether it is the world media condemning Israel as if they were morally equivalent to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, or Jon Stewart lecturing Tim Pawlenty on the concerns he has regarding the rancor and cynicism emanating from the Right, those complaining the loudest about the other sides’ “tone” are typically those who properly understand the situation (and its root causes) the least.
Americans are traditionally opinionated people. Our unique history, our representative form of government, and our economic freedoms are great facilitators of this fact. People in other, less free, countries would give anything to have our “problems” of tone as their own nation’s largest worry. Heck, even Americans from the 18th and 19th centuries would trade our climate of “harsh” rhetoric for the volatile world they lived, voted, and debated with their neighbors in.
It was during a recent viewing of the National Geographic Channel’s documentary The Real Abraham Lincoln that this whole subject was brought to a point of some clarity in my mind. I consider myself a fervent student of history, and our own history in particular. I’ve had all the same history classes that many of you sat through during high school and college, and yet how quickly even I can forget what a tumultuous time the 1860’s truly were. How readily we dismiss the fact that 150 years ago our nation nearly tore itself apart because of divergent worldviews and conflicting stances on the political issues of the day.
Lincoln knew what real political “rancor” sounded like. He lived it. He ate, drank, and breathed it. It was everywhere and inescapable in his day. Young men were dying in battlefields on American soil as a result of it.
And yet we all consider that fight a necessary one. Contemporary conservatives and liberals alike recognize in the story of the fight to save the Union and free the slaves that sometimes strong words, and even stronger actions, are required if truth and justice are to prevail.
So where does that leave us? What does history – more specifically, American history – have to teach us about the state of our own discourse and dialogue today?
In short: we need softer hearts, and thicker skins.
Praise God that we don’t have a literal Civil War to deal with today. Thank the Lord that relatives aren’t killing relatives on battlefields across the Union because of Obamacare or School Choice. Keith Olbermann’s nastiest rant, Bill O’Reilly’s most arrogant retort, are nothing compared to a musket ball through the eyeball on the hills of Gettysburg or Antietam.
To compare the murder of six people at the hands of one deranged schizophrenic with the loss of roughly 500,000 Americans at the hands of their friends and neighbors is like comparing apples with some fruit no one’s ever heard of. The two events, and the rhetoric and circumstances that led to them, are worlds – not just centuries – apart. It says more about the timidity and emotional weaknesses of our own day and age than that of Lincoln’s time that we worry to such a great extent about rhetoric that leads to such non-violent things as passionate blog-posts and media surprise over Election Day voter turnout.
Do people take their politically-charged words too far in our culture? No doubt. Parents, pastors and teachers need to encourage young people to resolve their differences in a civil manner as much as possible.
Softer hearts.
But the truth is an important thing to many of us. To hear the truth disparaged, or worse still, falsehoods masqueraded as truth (and sometimes enacted as laws of the land), is a rightly frustrating thing. To stand on principle requires that one be willing to suffer for that principle. This includes being made fun of. This includes being mocked and lampooned. This includes turning the other cheek when suffering, if only verbally, for your beliefs.
Thicker skins.
Things aren’t even as bad today as they were in the 1960’s, let alone the Civil War. Patience with our ideological enemies, and firmness and fortitude in our convictions, will change the culture more than any law, any presidential speech, or any disingenuous plea from a fake cable news show anchor/comedian.
So what do you think of my take, Ricochet? Where am I wrong? What do I have right?
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
R.J. Moeller:
So what do you think of my take, Ricochet? Where am I wrong? What do I have right? ·
I think your take is an excellent one. Your post really puts our current situation into perspective.
May '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
People who lived through the 60s have told me before that the modern climate isn't as bad. My mom told me once that, as a young girl riding in a car through Americus, Georgia, her dad told her to put her head down while blacks along the road threw rocks at the car. I've seen footage of the riots.
Yet I have trouble looking at how fervently and openly so many on the Left demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy and utter disregard for the most basic rights of conservatives without thinking that we're headed for widespread violence.
It's not the words. It's the lack of them. It seems so common for the liberals and conservatives to be tied up in each other's lives without having any genuine debate. As I said somewhere before, it's like a household in which one family member has disowned the other, so only one member is trying to heal the family while the other is working to seize all property.
But I don't know the future. I do know that we have a moral duty to treat our opponents honorably regardless of how they treat us.
May '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
To continue my last thought, when one side of a family has stopped trying to reconcile, the other side must be exhibit tremendous strength and sacrifice to hold the family together. Thick skins and soft hearts is a good way to put it.
I've had many friends who were flaming liberals. Most abandoned me to one degree or another, but I am willing to sacrifice to continue living as their fellow citizen.
Yet, at the same time, lines must be drawn. I will not abandon truth and justice for the sake of a false peace. Indulging every tyrannical choice of another is not love.
May '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Nicely put, R.J.
I'd add something about strength of opinion. The right needs to be a lot better at just plain winning arguments. It's one thing to be civil and to absorb the Left's slings and arrows, but we also have to pack a good, logical, fact-based punch.
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
R.J. Moeller:
People in other, less free, countries would give anything to have our “problems” of tone as their own nation’s largest worry.
This is so true I have no idea how to convey it. It's the mark of a really safe, free society that people fret so much about the mean things people say. Really, really, really, most people in the rest of the world would be relieved to have such problems.
Sep '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
The people who are complaining about the tone of current political discourse are certainly doing so for many reasons. I am convinced that most are doing so because they believe it will give then some political advantage. There is certainly another sizable group that believes doing so makes them appear to be sensitive and compassionate. I think only a small minority believe that it is a significant problem. This later group I would label as a bunch of ding-bats. But then I am neither seeking a political advantage nor wishing to appear sensitive and compassionate.
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
We have a great American tradition of political cartooning. None of it kind-hearted, but some of it very effective...when did we stop being so thin skinned?
May '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
R.J. Moeller:
People in other, less free, countries would give anything to have our “problems” of tone as their own nation’s largest worry.
This is so true I have no idea how to convey it. It's the mark of a really safe, free society that people fret so much about the mean things people say. Really, really, really, most people in the rest of the world would be relieved to have such problems.
Certainly true, but I would add one consideration to that point. There are no universal conditions under which civil relationships dissolve.
Americans demand a higher standard of freedom.
It's similar to divorce. Some people seek divorce on a whim or because they were pressured into doing so by their peers. Some divorce upon infidelity (to a social contract). Others are willing to stomach repeated infidelity and divorce only in response to physical abuse. Still others never seek divorce even while being beaten bloody and treated like dirt.
If you grew up in an area where people usually get treated like dirt and simply swallow it, then you probably will, too. But some relationships break much, much easier.
Jul '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
For many years, even "mainstream" political figures on the Left have spewed invective with utter impunity. Consider Teddy Kennedy's slander of Robert Bork, Carl Levin equating our soldiers with Nazis and the Khmer Rouge or...um...just about anything Harry Reid ever utters.
Meanwhile, wussy GOP leaders did little or nothing to respond directly to their "dear friends" across the aisle.
What's different now is that talk radio and the Internet have given a voice to those of us who are tired of being demonized. And the Left, so used to dishing it out, very much dislikes having to take it.
Dec '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Diane Ellis, Ed.
R.J. Moeller:
So what do you think of my take, Ricochet? Where am I wrong? What do I have right? ·
I think your take is an excellent one. Your post really puts our current situation into perspective. · Jan 20 at 9:26pm
Thanks! I appreciate it. I get so sick of the hand-wringing that goes on and felt I had to share my thoughts. Glad it struck a chord with others too.
Dec '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Aaron Miller: It's not the words. It's the lack of them. It seems so common for the liberals and conservatives to be tied up in each other's lives without having any genuine debate. As I said somewhere before, it's like a household in which one family member has disowned the other, so only one member is trying to heal the family while the other is working to seize all property.
But I don't know the future. I do know that we have a moral duty to treat our opponents honorably regardless of how they treat us. · Jan 20 at 9:39pm
Excellent analogy! Wow, I really like that. Might have to use it myself from now on.
Dec '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
R.J. Moeller:
People in other, less free, countries would give anything to have our “problems” of tone as their own nation’s largest worry.
This is so true I have no idea how to convey it. It's the mark of a really safe, free society that people fret so much about the mean things people say. Really, really, really, most people in the rest of the world would be relieved to have such problems. · Jan 20 at 11:25pm
I was hoping that you might respond to this Claire, what with your unique perspective and all. I've done little world-traveling at this point in my life, but I've always felt that what we complain about here (in terms of dangers and societal woes) is nothing compared to the rest of the planet. Obviously we are monetarily blessed here in America, but our form of government and Judeo-Christian morality (as decaying as it might be) create a buffer for us from the realities of how most of the world deals with politics and economic recessions, etc.
God bless!
May '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Great post. What bothers me most about the invective-laden rhetoric we hear is that it becomes less about what is said, but more about who is saying it. Our reality tv obsession has spilled over into our political debate. It takes attention off the actual important issues, so ground is lost by the distraction. When I read/see/hear very incendiary comments from someone, my first reaction is that this is a desperate cry for attention and approval. I guess that's why so many liberal comedians like to bash conservatives - it feeds the attention beast. It's not even that it's offensive, but that it's obstructive to a well-reasoned and ultimately persuasive argument. I don't think having a verbal temper tantrum is courageous or productive, and it certainly won't change anyone's mind.
Dec '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
Ottoman Umpire: Nicely put, R.J.
I'd add something about strength of opinion. The right needs to be a lot better at just plain winning arguments. It's one thing to be civil and to absorb the Left's slings and arrows, but we also have to pack a good, logical, fact-based punch. · Jan 20 at 10:13pm
I literally couldn't agree more!
Nov '10
Re: Softer Hearts, Thicker Skins
This is a superb post followed by excellent responses. It makes me feel better than ever (and I have felt very good since I joined) about the clear thinking and the sober and reasonable temper of the participants. All one has to do to see the difference between this and other places on the web is to look at "comments" sections such as that of the Wall Street Journal; they are filled with the most venomous nonsense that it is not worthwhile reading them. Lesser publications are even worse.
Along with Milady Claire's report about the situations of those living outside of our country, wee ought to be grateful for the tone and content of this site.