Election Season Etiquette -- whatever happened to civil discourse?

[Publius]

From the Opinion Journal (OpinionJournal - Taste):

A colleague of ours had an unusual experience the other day. At the height of the midterm-election season, she met a fellow voter who seemed removed from partisan warfare--or at least he wanted to discuss the candidates and issues without pushing his own preferences and slamming people of opposing views.

That was a rare encounter at a time when civil political discourse among ordinary Americans has all but vanished. Since the country was founded, political passions have run high at election time. Yet away from the street brawls and fist-fighting, there was an unspoken pact among most Americans to preserve some semblance of respect for a diversity of views. You might disparage a candidate, but you avoided demonizing his supporters. In this way, friendships strained during a campaign could be mended afterward.

That's not so easy anymore. What passes for political discussion these days is often sharp and nasty. People come to dinner parties not with debating points but with baseball bats. Bush is an idiot; Clinton is a liar--end of conversation. Unless, that is, someone dares to disagree, in which case he is a liar or idiot too. College reunions, family gatherings, even worship services--almost every occasion has become a danger zone.

With a Republican administration in power and a war in Iraq, Democratic partisans tend to be the most belligerent offenders today. A Washington, D.C., resident informs us that she now dreads going to AA meetings, where they talk of nothing except the wicked and despised George Bush. That anyone present might respect Mr. Bush or simply find such rancorous talk distressing does not seem to matter.

Republicans may be in the hot seat now. Yet expert observers agree that there's been a general decline in political etiquette. Judith Martin, also known as the syndicated columnist "Miss Manners," points out that the old rule against discussing politics, sex and religion evolved for a good reason. These are "volatile subjects," even in a modern context, she told us. "You bring up abortion, you bring up gay marriage" and it can be toxic.
Ms. Martin notes that only good old-fashioned manners--e.g., no personal attacks, no obscenity--can make discussions of controversial topics possible. But Stephen Miller, author of "Conversation: A History of a Declining Art," is not sure that civility, once abandoned, can be restored. He told us that many Americans have retreated into "anger communities," including partisan "Web sites that provide grist for their mill."

One result, he says, is an actual aversion to discourse. "We now have in this country words for ending conversation--'Oh, you're a fundamentalist' or 'you're a secularist.' " The subtext, he adds, is: "You're so stupid I couldn't possibly have a conversation with you."

Stephen Hess, a scholar of governance and public policy, and author of "The Little Book of Campaign Etiquette," has a slightly less pessimistic outlook. He notes that loathing of Thomas Jefferson was palpable in his era. In fact, Mr. Hess told us, "if you go back long enough in American history, there has always been so much anger and so much ill-will cast around that you have to be careful about thinking that we invented it."

Memories and bitterness fade, though--who remembers that even Dwight Eisenhower received hate mail? So Mr. Hess hopes that when two current sources of contention, George Bush and the war in Iraq, eventually pass from the scene, Americans will fall back into more restful, or at least less vicious, conversational habits.

Even so, he, like Mr. Miller, worries about new and possibly perpetual antagonizing in the age of blogging, where "anything that someone sitting in a basement in their underwear wishes to spew gets into the community." And at present, there is only one refuge from the fray. "You almost have to stick to people who think just like you," Mr. Hess laments. "It's terribly sad. It has changed the nature of discourse, at least among people who want to talk about public matters."

I think the article raises a good point, and one we see daily on our own site. There is so much vitriol and poison thrown out not just at candidates and office holders, that's nothing new, but also at people who support those individuals and/or their beliefs.

It's really sad how destructive and degrading our political discourse has become over the last few years...

[hsmith]

It has become that way by design.

Make people not care and you can do what you please.

[KatKanPlay]

Never in our country's history have we faced, as a nation, what we are facing right now. People are very passionate and therefore it is hard to have face to face conversations. I am very passionate about it and I have no patience for those who continue to insist we did the right thing and support the whole we fight them over there bullshit. I am truly afraid for my country's future.

I avoid talking about politics, at all cost, with those I work with or some family, unless they happen to say something I believe in. (Well except the shouting matches I used to have with my Dad, whole other story.) I just dont talk much face to face with people, my passion rises high.

Thats why I spend alot of time at LL. I can at least throw my 2 cents in from time to time and get my political conversation fix. Whether I contribute or not, the conversation rocks.

[Diesel66]

why would I want to be civil to a dirty liberal communist heathen ?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Never in our country's history have we faced, as a nation, what we are facing right now.

That isn't true. Go read some of the articles published in newspapers during the Founding Era... Some of their vitriol makes our political attack ads look like friendly jabs.

[ballz2wallz]

But at the end of the day most of us would sit down at the bar and have a drink with each other; that's the way it's always been.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

That isn't true. Go read some of the articles published in newspapers during the Founding Era... Some of their vitriol makes our political attack ads look like friendly jabs.

No this is true. I am not talking about nasty politics. That has been with us from the beginning. This country has never had the type of leadership that has been so corrupt and so dishonest as to provide knowingly false justification to invade and occupy another country. I think NPAC and the neoconservative movement is far stronger than any of us realize. The war machine they want to create will be self perpetuating. Their plan to spread their own form of democracy and so called freedom across the planet has nothing to do with creating a greater democracy here at home. It has everything to do with gaining global power while controlling and limiting civil liberties and wealth distribution.

With the exception of the birth pangs felt during the Founding Era, as a nation, we have never been so disrespected and even laughed at by the rest of the world. The whole of Europe thought at least 1/2 of Americans were idiots for keeping this administration in office after 04. We are not the GREAT nation we were 6 years ago and I fear we may never be again. That is just how I see, and Im not alone in my views.

[Publius]

Kat, Lincoln's attacks on our freedom and liberty was worse than Bush's.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Kat, Lincoln's attacks on our freedom and liberty was worse than Bush's.

yeah but in all fairness. we were having a civil war and americans were taking up arms against americans.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

Kat, Lincoln's attacks on our freedom and liberty was worse than Bush's.

Publius, that was a civil war took place inside our own borders. One side was fighting against freedom and liberty for all. In my view, I do not see the two as comparable. It was a horrendous time in our history and occurred long before the world viewed us as a super power and defender of human rights and decency.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Publius, that was a civil war took place inside our own borders. One side was fighting against freedom and liberty for all.

The North.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

The North.

I thought the North was fighting the South because they wanted to control the South. That would imply less freedom, and more federal control.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I thought the North was fighting the South because they wanted to control the South. That would imply less freedom, and more federal control.

No, the North was fighting the South because fine Southern gentleman were amassing great wealth with slave labor.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

The North.

Well if the South had won this war, we would not have abolished slavery. It was all about the money. The North paid labor, the south didnt. I guess freedom and liberty for all only applies to wealthy landowners?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

No, the North was fighting the South because fine Southern gentleman were amassing great wealth with slave labor.

No, slavery was not a cause of the Civil War. It just happened that abolished slavery became a result of the war as it progressed.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Well if the South had won this war, we would not have abolished slavery.

That's naive to say. The war was only a medium through which the inevitable was allowed to happen.

Do you really think slavery would still be around today if the South had won that war?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, slavery was not a cause of the Civil War. It just happened that abolished slavery became a result of the war as it progressed.

Slavery was the proxy cause of the civil war. The civil war was not started to abolish slavery, the civil war was started because of the big financial advantage free labor gave to the South.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's naive to say. The war was only a medium through which the inevitable was allowed to happen.

Do you really think slavery would still be around today if the South had won that war?

There is nothing naive about it. Abolition was the only logical conclusion that ended the war. Again, it had little to do with freeing the slaves and more to do with free labor.

No I dont believe slavery would still be around today, but, I do believe we would not be called the United States of America if the South had won the war. The country would look very different today had that been the case.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

No, the North was fighting the South because fine Southern gentleman were amassing great wealth with slave labor.

Uh, not many were amassing great wealth through slave labor.

In fact, very very few were.