Our political discourse -- some musings

[markpkessinger]

(I should start with a disclaimer: what follows are some thoughts I've been kicking around, in the wake of the events in Arizona, about possible contributing factors to the much-discussed breakdown of our civic discourse. These thoughts are not, in any sense, fully formed; rather, I thought I’d present them for discussion in the hopes that hearing what others have to say might enable me to see things I hadn’t considered.)

In a post last week, I suggested that at least part of the problem in our discourse might lie with the way much of the public seems to so enjoy ― and reward ― political, cultural and social leaders who use untempered, emotionally-laden, even coarse language in presenting their opinions and portraying those who think differently. Many seem to take such unvarnished rhetoric as evidence of some notion of “authenticity,” that the speaker is “just a regular guy/gal.” That take on the matter seems to ignore that, by definition, when someone is in a position of leadership ― be it political, cultural, social, elected or unelected ― such persons are different from the rest of us.

Following on with that line of thinking, I’ve been wondering if another contributor to the general decline in our ability to disagree with people without demonizing them might have something to do with an overall decline, over the past 40 years or so, of any sense of appropriate levels of formality, levels which differ depending on the context, in the ways in which we speak and relate to one another. Throughout much of our culture, I think, we have eschewed formality in our dealings; formality is largely deemed to be unnecessarily “stuffy” or old-fashioned, perhaps even elitist. In almost every daily context, we operate as if on a presumed familiarity: sales persons try to engage us in conversation, trying to tease out our first names because they think such familiarity will make us more comfortable and pliable as potential customers. Most of us are on a first-name basis with our bosses and supervisors. Even telemarketers and debt collectors, who have obtained our names in advance, presume to address us on a first name basis.

This creeping casualness is harmless enough in most contexts, and I’m not suggesting a return to 19th Century style formality (although, I have been known to say to telephone solicitors who address me like I’m a long lost friend, “Excuse me, but have we met?”). But a certain degree of formality, I think, can be helpful and constructive, particularly in public debate. Formality imposes a certain set of parameters on the ways in which we talk about things and refer to one another. Formality can serve to remind us that we are speaking in a public context and that it is thus important to speak responsibly.

I think back particularly to the previous President, who spoke to the country about matters of huge import as if he were talking to his best friend at a backyard Texas barbecue. I would submit that much of his down-home rhetoric was feigned in a cynical attempt to appeal to folks who think a valid criterion for evaluating a potential President is whether he/she is someone you would enjoy having a beer with, but nevertheless, a huge portion of the country seemed to have bought into it. I remember when, in 2003, he said of Iraqi insurgents, “bring it on,” as if he were starring in some Clint Eastwood or Jean Claude Van Damme action flick. At the time, it raised a few eyebrows, but his shoot-from-the-hip style soon came to be accepted and even, in some circles, exalted as evidence of some perverse notion of leadership ability. But it is worth remembering that even as recently as a generation ago, such off-handed, untempered rhetoric would have been considered shockingly inappropriate on the part of any public official, let alone the President of the United States. George W. Bush is actually the first major public example I can think of where a national leader, speaking of a matter of immense seriousness and public interest, spoke in such a reckless manner and was not excoriated for it. I suspect his decision to speak in such a manner was a conscious, planned one taken directly from the Karl Rove playbook.

So, what are others’ thoughts on this? Is the lack of any sense of formality, of appropriateness to time and place, a significant factor in all this? Is this one more thing to add to the long list of ways in which the previous Administration negatively impacted the country?

[Faygo Kid]

1. Limbaugh.

I wouldn't overanalyze it. Ever since Limbaugh appeared on the national scene 20 years ago, he has legitimized hatred and the attitude that you don't have to justify disagreement: If someone disagrees with you, it's because that person is evil or stupid, or both, but never because there is principled disagreement.

Everything since his coming to power is just copycat for money: Fox News, Beck, Hannity, etc.

It all goes back to Limbaugh, one of the worst human beings to ever disgrace this planet.

[SharonAnn]

3. Don't forget Newet Ginrich. In the 1990's with his "talking points" and insults.

He ratcheted up the vitriol in Congress to a previously unknown level.

And he was rewarded for it, so everyone else jumped on board.

Don't ever forget that Gingrich was the key player in fomenting the incivility in Congress.

And as far as bipartisan? Remember, he is the one responsible for shutting down the government.

A tantrum throwing crybaby.

[kentuck]

2. I think more than a lack of formality...

it is a lack of respect for another's viewpoints. It it the derision and ridicule heaped on our political opponents.

It is the name-calling which bears no resemblance to the truth. It is the falshoods fabricated for political manipulation of one small political interest group or the other and, over time, this has deteriorated to the point where we are today.

And it is the political result of those lies on average people, who have slipped from the middle-class into the poor working class or from the poor working class into homelessness, all brought on by the lies and propaganda paid for by the wealthy class of this country.