There’s an old saying about disagreeing without being disagreeable. Whatever happened to that concept?
Of course, I’m talking about politics. Actually, it could be about everyday life, simply because so much of it has been politicized. What used to be discussed over the backyard fence with your neighbor has now been hijacked by the talking heads that command so much of the airwaves. And instead of being joked about or minimized so that it wouldn’t become a sore point between friends, now they command the attention of millions several days in a row.
Let’s start by getting the names you know out there. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann. Bill Maher. Jon Stewart. Bill O’Reilly. Michael Savage. Dennis Miller. Steven Colbert. Geraldo Rivera. Chris Matthews. Ann Coulter. Michael Medved. Michael Moore. Laura Ingraham. And a blast from the past, Joe Pyne. Lots more, but you’re starting to see how pervasive it is. Add into that the number of celebrities who are pushing one agenda or another regardless of their credentials and you start to get the impression that either you have a show or you’re opinion doesn’t count.
Aside from the obvious, what can you find in common about all of those above? Here’s a hint – no matter which side they choose to bash, they really aren’t all that different.
A good friend of mine since the last century, Paul, mentioned that he’d heard another commentator, Mike McConnell, say that there are more similarities than either side would admit. And he’s right.
What has this done to the normal discourse? Further, does the vitriol spewed by so many of the folks reflect the country at large, or is it merely feeding the fire? In other words, is political commentary the cause or the effect of how polarized we are today?
And here’s a scary thought: is the divisiveness we’re seeing today leading us toward the sectarian Balkanization we see in other countries?
This country has always been portrayed as the safe haven for dissenters, no matter how wacky. Yet it seems that we’re insulating ourselves from opinions not quite like our own and labeling practitioners of opposing views as evil, un-American, intolerant, stupid, insolent and morally bereft.
It’s becoming less like the America I want to live in.
It crosses all sorts of lines: racial, ethnic, gender, age, political party, wealth, education, you name it.
Now for the disclosure: I have for some time been described by my parents as just to the right of Genghis Khan. However, that’s not entirely accurate either. Conservatives would disown me because I happen to disagree with some of their standards. For example, I don’t believe that every “real American” is entitled to own assault rifles, bazookas or an F-22 Raptor. In fact, I’d feel much safer if very few had guns, sort of like Great Britain.
I think that campaign finance reform as we know it is a joke. The Supreme Court decision was disturbing. And term limits should be in place for every elected politician.
There is a place for generosity and giving assistance to those who cannot fend for themselves. However, it should not be a birthright for their children or grandchildren.
What’s interesting is that the political lines have shifted over the years. What was espoused by John Kennedy is in some cases seen as part of the moderate Republican agenda. Kennedy understood the problems of over taxation. He understood the need for people to volunteer and that little G government could not and should not be the source of answers for all of society’s needs.
Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
In the past two thousand years philosophers and historians have dissected what destroyed the Roman Empire. Much of it was hubris, much of it was the Government being the end all, be all. In some cases we seem to be repeating that now.
But I digress. We were discussing the current state of affairs.
Another old friend from school, Willie, posted an interesting comment on Facebook: “Ok Tea Party/Republicans. You pretty much got what you wanted so now it's all on you. When you get sworn in on January 3, 2011 I expect to wake up on January 4, 2011 with a fully restored economy and every American in a full time job.. I'll extend you the same amount of patience and support as you gave to the current administration. No excuses about needing time to turn things around.”
At first I dismissed Willie’s comment as being sour grapes. But upon further review, he has a point – although I’m not sure he’d agree with my assessment. I think Willie’s distress at the outcome of the election is a commentary on the divide and the lack of civility we experience daily. Whether you agree with him or not is moot; what matters is that his comments mirror the same sentiments you hear from one side or the other. And that’s the disturbing thing.
So we’ve come to this. It’s the natural human desire to vanquish your enemies, but it’s been ratcheted up by the politicization of virtually everything in life. It’s more than a lack of civility – it’s our seeming inability to discuss things rationally without becoming upset with the messenger. The virtue of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
While you can certainly look back at our history and find the cartoons of Thomas Nash or records of politicians demonizing their opponents (remember the history lesson of Senator Preston Brooks caning Senator Charles Sumner), you can also look back at the more recent history of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan. This almost brings back fond memories of backroom political deals in smoke-filled kitchens. O’Neill and Reagan, while rarely in agreement politically, became pretty good friends. There are stories about how the two would get together after hours and share a drink and compromise for the good of the people. Whether you think it was wise or not, it did show that rare commodity, civility.
Perhaps we need a good stiff shot of that lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment