Civil Political Discourse

In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, many are once again crying out for a more civil form of political discourse in this country. I applaud their sentiment, but question the means of their proposed fix. Actually, there is no reason not to see more civility in all aspects of our daily lives and I have said so in this blog more than once. I likewise have no argument with the concept of basing debate in this country, political or otherwise, on the reasoned argument of facts rather than shouted out ad hominems based solely on usually over-the-top appeals to emotion.

I have a great deal of argument however, with any elected member of the government or unelected member of the national bureaucracy attempting to legislate or regulate the tone of debate in this country; or to restrict in any way the right of free speech guaranteed to its citizens in the Constitution.

We are told these days that no reasoned political debate in this country can take place unless both sides become willing to compromise on their closely held principles. Really? Have these people been so confused by the rush to political correctness that they are confusing the concept of finding of common ground that can be agreed upon with compromise?  Of greater concern where those thinking compromise is the answer is to discover what kind of principles these can be and how strongly can they be held if those with them are so willing to cast them aside in the name of political expediency?

If that were the standard, the United States would have long remained part of the British Empire. Our Founding Fathers, in the spirit of such compromise, would simply have discarded those principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence that King George did not accede to, and settled for whatever he and Parliament granted them in return. Perhaps eventually, like Canada, we would have been granted some form home rule over time; but the last 235 years of our nation's history would have been a far different thing.

Speaking of history ...

We are likewise told that never in the history of this country has political rhetoric been so acrimonious. Really? I'm afraid that this might be yet another example of the the failure of the education system in America to teach its history. Such a statement would come as a great surprise to anyone who has actually read any part of the political history of this country, and understood that the tone and tenor of political discourse in this country has always been incendiary at best.

Early national campaigns were often filled with defamatory remarks, spurious claims, and vitriolic personal attacks; mostly written anonymously by political opponents or their sycophants (you know, like many newspaper editorials and most blog comments), and printed in newspapers that had yet to define a set of ethics for themselves (unlike today, when most simply ignore them). John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both scurrilously attacked by both fair means and foul during their political careers in ways that would make much of today's rhetoric seem tame by comparison.

Aaron Burr fought a duel with Alexander Hamilton over the provocative comments that Mr Hamilton made regarding Mr Burr's character during the New York gubernatorial election of 1804 (Hamilton was in fact killed in a defense of this point of honor). Andrew Jackson fought 13 duels (all before becoming President), mostly with men goaded into such contests by Jackson's political rivals over the rather confusing circumstances of the marital status of Rachel Donelson-Robards, who became his first lady Rachel Jackson. (It was said that Jackson carried so much lead in his body from these confrontations that he rattled when he walked.)  

 Political debate in Washington has even seen it turn from rhetoric to physical violence in Congress itself, when in 1856 Rep Preston Brooks literally beat Sen Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate after Sumner had made remarks comparing Brooks's relative to a pimp during an anti-slavery speech.

Recent history has not in fact seen an increase of the inflammatory nature of invective, as much as an expansion of its visibility on 24-hour a day cable news networks intent on filling time with the tastiest sound-bites they can find (or manufacture through clever editing) or the maundering of political operatives who are out of work between elections (and usually trying to promote a web site or book). This saturation effect is added to and enhanced by the ever-moving line on such news programs of the line between 'reporting' and 'editorializing'.

Where once those who called themselves journalists were greatly concerned about injecting no personal opinion into their work, one could easily make the case that their efforts are now more involved with selective presentation and slanting of the few facts that they bother to use.  Instead they see fit to spend the bulk of their time taking the bully pulpit share with us their well-informed opinion and pontificate on the few scraps of fact that they throw to us. Far from returning to objective reporting of the past, they have instead made the difference between reporter and commentator functionally insignificant.

I find in looking at the process that cannot set aside my lingering suspicions as to the motivation of such efforts. Having done some research and writing on previous attempts like the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation, I cannot help but observe that any such government intervention has in the past favored incumbents over the challengers and professional politicians over political neophytes. I cannot help but foresee that any new effort would in all likelihood not only follow the same path, but could easily be used as a stepping stone for abuse by the political party in power at the time (neither of which has yet to prove themselves worthy of such trust) for further encroachments. 

The question ultimately before us then is not whether the political debate in this country should be more civil, but whether such civility should be judged by and performed under guidelines set up by the professional politicians and bureaucrats of the legislative branch or regulatory arm of the government; with the force of law to back up their notion of such behavior.  

To this my answer is a very civil, but very loud: No Thank You!