Options
Can Civility Be Lost If It Was Never Found?
· Friday, October 23, 2009
There is much gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth these days about the death of civility.
Apparently, like Cupid with his arrow or a pixie with fairy dust, some magical sprite used to enchant America's political combatants, ensuring that all public discourse was full of beg-your-pardons and please-and-thank-yous. But we have offended our little leprechaun. He's taken his Lucky Charms and gone home, leaving Americans angry, cranky and rude.
Or at least that's what I gather from all this talk of lost civility. Personally, I'm not sure I know what people are talking about. When was this Golden Age of civility?
Was this glorious era of politeness during George W. Bush's presidency? Funny, that's not how I remember it.
So maybe the 1990s was the last great outpouring of lovingkindness? Hmmm, no. At least I don't think Clarence Thomas would say so. Nor do I think anyone who watched the Clinton show would claim it was a hallmark of sober debate on either side. Clinton's minions attacked victims of his sexual aggression or revelations about his accomplices in his adultery as "bimbo eruptions." Was civility the norm when Rep. Charlie Rangel said of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things"?
Was it the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was routinely dubbed a nuclear-trigger-happy "amiable dunce"? I was young then, so I'll check with Robert Bork and see what he thinks.
Perhaps it was in the 1960s and 1970s? Sure, there was admirable civil disobedience in the beginning, but there was a lot more uncivil disobedience, what with all the domestic terror attacks and the protesters asking LBJ how many kids he killed today.
The 1950s? Who knew the McCarthy era was such a high-water mark of domestic tranquility? What about the 1930s? America saw its worst labor violence, and FDR had to put up with demagogues like Huey Long and Father Coughlin (who attacked him from the left, by the way). How about the 1910s, when Woodrow Wilson threw political opponents in jail? Or in 1919, when he dubbed "hyphenated Americans" (i.e. "German-Americans) traitors? "I cannot say too often -- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic. ... If I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic."
OK, enough of all that.
And yes, let me offer a sincere denunciation of rudeness for rudeness' sake. Let me also concede that there is no shortage of bilious, nasty rhetoric on the right.
But here's the thing. First, it was ever thus. American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won't shut up and get with their program.
And there's something distinctly undemocratic about that.
The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama's opponents are trying to "delegitimize" the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.
In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."
On health care he's been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn't even have a plan to debate.
Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president's agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network's lack of objectivity?
Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it's worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. "Objective" journalism is a 20th century confabulation, as alien to the Founders' vision as transporter beams and time travel.
Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.
(C) 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Acton Institute Senior Fellow, Marvin Olasky: "Liberals say and do so many nutty things. The Patriot puts them all in a nutshell--easy to crack and fun to read." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Arnold Ahlert: CPAC Braces for Union & Occupier Chaos
- Michael Reagan: A Little More Heat
- George Will: GOP's Murky Rhetoric on National Defense
- Larry Elder: Aren't Republicans Supposed to Be Colorblind?
- Thomas Sowell: The Anti-Romney Vote
- Ann Coulter: Plutocrat Dems Attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'
- Burt Prelutsky: Was Idi Amin Smarter Than Martha Stewart?
- L. Brent Bozell: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Delousing of a Movement
- Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
- Cal Thomas: Fudging the Numbers
- Michael Barone: GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!






















MichaelSSEC
The Left has always struggled with civility. Back in the 70s Reagan's opponent for Governor of CA ran an ad that compared the former actor to Lincoln's assassin. The CA public was appalled and the ad backfired. Oddly, if the Left ran that ad today nobody would blink. If the GOP ran it, though, the media would lose their minds. Funny how that works, eh?
I remember when Teddy "the lifeguard" Kennedy toyed with running for President in 79, he made a public statement to the effect that he'd need to ask his mother if it was all right with her. Now, I've always been a Kennedy-hater, but given that family's history even *I* understood why Teddy might want to clear the decision with his mother. But then-incumbent Jimmy Carter made a snide remark wondering what kind of man needed to his mommy for permission to run for President. That too backfired.
When Mitt Romney ran for Governor of MA, the same Teddy Kennedy was behind a massive smear campaign that pummeled Romney for being a Mormon. They dragged up all kinds of rumors and the religion's history with polygamy, among other things. Conveniently, nobody in the media noticed that it's wrong to pick on a candidate for his religion (they forgot this fact again when Romney ran for President and the media was suddenly filled with Mormon-bashing stories about Warren Jeffs -- what was the outcome of that case, does anyone know? You're forgiven because the INSTANT the GOP primaries were over and Romney was out, the media dropped that story like a hot rock) but they sure had no trouble remembering that principle again when people questioned Obama's religion. THAT was off-limits. BTW, ripping Romney on his religion backfired in MA, as he did win the Gubernatorial race, yet it worked well in the national spotlight, helping to cost him the GOP nomination.
But the point is, all those blunders were okayed by the reigning Democrats or their campaigns as good ideas worthy of their offices. Where are the media watchdogs who keep candidates from doing these things? They seem to be alert and bushy-tailed whenever a GOP operative or candidate blunders in this fashion (and even when he doesn't), but let a Liberal say something outrageous and you can't find a MSM reporter to report the story.
Posted October 25, 2009 at 2:58:58 PM