Civility, apathy, incredulity

Few days pass that I don’t hear some lament, from one quarter or another, about the horrendous state of political debate in the United States. We’re talking past each other. We’re using deplorably hostile language. We’re ignoring that there is so much more that unites us than divides us. We’re more interested in winning the point than we are in solving problems together.

Yeah. So.

Usually, I don’t have much patience with such pines. For one thing, acting as if this rhetorical climate is a recent, unfortunate development essentially ignores our country’s entire history. We’ve never been consistently polite when disagreeing with one another. Robust discourse, including some occasional ventures into territory that might upset the delicate temperaments of good little ladies and gentlemen, is inherent in a free society. This is not to be decried, but celebrated, even in this age in which the ease of self-publishing generates much more of it (of predictably varying quality levels) than any of us ever imagined.

For another, these calls for civility often come from some of the worst practitioners of incivility (or supporters of said practitioners). I got some mileage out of that when the political right was alleged to be reaching a new low with its attacks on Obama. Then, that post got some renewed currency with the recent light-speed and completely unsupported attempt to paint Representative Giffords’ would-be assassin as a product of unhinged conservative rhetoric.

Few things are as amusing—or useful—in a political opponent as lack of self-awareness. “We need to elevate our political language,” all too often, means “I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing, and you need to shut up.”

Shall I elevate my political discourse here? Perhaps, but not for any moral imperative such complainants perceive.

Stay tuned.

Civility, apathy, incredulity

You might also like:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply