Toward Civilty?
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
He said things that I truly wish all politicians would take to heart - including President Obama.
He said American needs, "a basic level of civility in our public debate."
Here, here. I couldn't agree more.
He said, "We cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down ... You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like 'socialist' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascist' and 'right-wing nut' may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.
"... The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation, it prevents learning. Since, after all, why should we listen to a fascist or a socialist or a right-wing nut? Or a left-wing nut? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences, to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture. And at its worst, it can send signals to the extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
He said there is a need in politics to, "treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."
Seriously, it was a truly great speech.
But, unfortunately the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
Certainly, President Obama can't control what everybody on Capitol Hill says. But he could certainly scold them after they say it.
And if he did, after awhile, maybe we could trend a little more toward the level of civility President Obama says he want in our political discourse.
But instead, we hear politicians inside and outside his administration and politicians of both parties saying all manner of incendiary stuff.
In a new book by Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, "The Promise: President Obama, Year One," is set to be released May 18. In the book, the President is quoted as saying that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans."
Tea-baggers is a term that has vulgar sexual connotations. I won't go into it here. If you must know, Google it.
At the outset of the Tea Party movement, even some tea party people unwittingly used the term to describe themselves. It didn't take long for tea party opponents, however, to latch onto the vulgar connotation and force it into the mainstream.
I fully admit I was unaware of the vulgar connotation until one of my liberal friends pointed it out to me.
But make no mistake, by the time President Obama used the term, he was fully aware of the vulgar connotation.
Sure, it's a minor point, but it goes to the larger point: Why, in the interest of civil discourse, use the term at all?
In his speech, the president also revisited the famous quote by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
That's absolutely true.
But it's not the truth of the matter. Let's be honest. All politicians operate from their own set of facts.
But if the president means what he says, he could do something about it.
Like when Sen. Majority leader Harry Reid said Republicans are "making love to Wall Street" with regard to the financial overhaul bill.
The president could have rang up Harry and said something like, "You know, Harry, you may want to stop saying things like that. Especially when you consider that of the $32 million contributed to political parties by the finance industry in 2010, 60 percent went to Democrats. Oh, and by the way, Harry, did you know my presidential campaign got $15 million from the finance industry? And did you know that the $1 million Goldman-Sachs employees gave me was the second largest contribution to my campaign?"
And the president could have called up New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and said, "You know, Mike, when you said that the Times Square bomb could have been placed 'by somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something,' that was a little over the top, don't you think?"
See, if the president actually made calls like that I think it would help.
And Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, should do the same.[[In-content Ad]]He should tamp down people like Sarah Palin who force dopey phrases like "death panels," "un-American" and "less free" into the political discourse.
Steele also should have a talk with U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachman who says all manner of vile stuff, like calling the Obama administration a "gangster government."
Or Gov. Rick Perry who hints to arenas full of people at conservative rallies that Texas might have to secede from the union.
I could cite dozens of examples on both sides of the aisle, but you get the picture.
But neither Obama nor Steele or anyone else for that matter is going to rein in anyone. They all seem to believe there is some sort of political advantage to be gained from all the exaggerations, obfuscations and outright lies.
I sincerely did like President Obama's speech. If only it could come true.
Latest News
E-Editions
He said things that I truly wish all politicians would take to heart - including President Obama.
He said American needs, "a basic level of civility in our public debate."
Here, here. I couldn't agree more.
He said, "We cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down ... You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like 'socialist' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascist' and 'right-wing nut' may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.
"... The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation, it prevents learning. Since, after all, why should we listen to a fascist or a socialist or a right-wing nut? Or a left-wing nut? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences, to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture. And at its worst, it can send signals to the extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
He said there is a need in politics to, "treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."
Seriously, it was a truly great speech.
But, unfortunately the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
Certainly, President Obama can't control what everybody on Capitol Hill says. But he could certainly scold them after they say it.
And if he did, after awhile, maybe we could trend a little more toward the level of civility President Obama says he want in our political discourse.
But instead, we hear politicians inside and outside his administration and politicians of both parties saying all manner of incendiary stuff.
In a new book by Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, "The Promise: President Obama, Year One," is set to be released May 18. In the book, the President is quoted as saying that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans."
Tea-baggers is a term that has vulgar sexual connotations. I won't go into it here. If you must know, Google it.
At the outset of the Tea Party movement, even some tea party people unwittingly used the term to describe themselves. It didn't take long for tea party opponents, however, to latch onto the vulgar connotation and force it into the mainstream.
I fully admit I was unaware of the vulgar connotation until one of my liberal friends pointed it out to me.
But make no mistake, by the time President Obama used the term, he was fully aware of the vulgar connotation.
Sure, it's a minor point, but it goes to the larger point: Why, in the interest of civil discourse, use the term at all?
In his speech, the president also revisited the famous quote by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
That's absolutely true.
But it's not the truth of the matter. Let's be honest. All politicians operate from their own set of facts.
But if the president means what he says, he could do something about it.
Like when Sen. Majority leader Harry Reid said Republicans are "making love to Wall Street" with regard to the financial overhaul bill.
The president could have rang up Harry and said something like, "You know, Harry, you may want to stop saying things like that. Especially when you consider that of the $32 million contributed to political parties by the finance industry in 2010, 60 percent went to Democrats. Oh, and by the way, Harry, did you know my presidential campaign got $15 million from the finance industry? And did you know that the $1 million Goldman-Sachs employees gave me was the second largest contribution to my campaign?"
And the president could have called up New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and said, "You know, Mike, when you said that the Times Square bomb could have been placed 'by somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something,' that was a little over the top, don't you think?"
See, if the president actually made calls like that I think it would help.
And Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, should do the same.[[In-content Ad]]He should tamp down people like Sarah Palin who force dopey phrases like "death panels," "un-American" and "less free" into the political discourse.
Steele also should have a talk with U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachman who says all manner of vile stuff, like calling the Obama administration a "gangster government."
Or Gov. Rick Perry who hints to arenas full of people at conservative rallies that Texas might have to secede from the union.
I could cite dozens of examples on both sides of the aisle, but you get the picture.
But neither Obama nor Steele or anyone else for that matter is going to rein in anyone. They all seem to believe there is some sort of political advantage to be gained from all the exaggerations, obfuscations and outright lies.
I sincerely did like President Obama's speech. If only it could come true.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092