TFP Column: Civil Political Discourse

I know that I'm supposed to be on vacation, but as I was getting ready to take this break, there remained a couple of efforts that were promised and delivered; and only now being released.  That included a piece that I wrote Saturday for the TFP.

In my particular case, it meant going back and looking at a subject that I had worked through a while back, that of "Civil Political Discourse".  It seemed that a couple of things needed to be presented to a wider audience whose political memory stretches no father back than Watergate (if that far) to point out that campaigns have used questionable rhetoric for as long as they've had campaigns in this country.

As for the concept of a debate, the definition of that word has likewise apparently disappeared into the mists of time; and like that of compromise, has become a form of politically expedient spinelessness.  Apparently schools no longer teach of some of the great political debates that it's had in its history, and that these ideological confrontations are part of a forgotten past.

What shouldn't be forgotten though, is that the 4th of July is fast upon us, and if you want to know the fireworks schedules and everything else going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio for the holiday and the week; you're going to be able to find it in Toledo largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper for the last three years, the Toledo Free Press.

By the way, you'd be well-advised to check out last weekends special tribute to those who have served and are serving in the military from NW Ohio in the "2012 Military Yearbook" edition.

Irish Directions

It seems that too much of life is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. While there are GPS systems in cars and even cell phones to get us from point A to B (with the shortest distance between the two points being anything but a straight line), there is no technology yet developed to help guide us through the more complicated geography of the daily issues of life. In fact, as I contemplate this concept in the shadow of St Patrick's Day, it seems that more often than not we are instead handed "Irish directions". 


Now for those of you who have never been blessed with a visit to the Emerald Isle, the only way to explain this concept is through example: 


Tourist: "Can you tell me how to get to town?" 


Local Answer: "Well do you see that road over there? Pay it no mind, it will do you no good. Now that other road there. Ah ... and many's the day I've walked it ..." 


Tourist: "To the town?" 


Local: "Not at all. No, it was off to fishin' I was, when the salmon were in season..." 


And so it goes. It's a grand story and lovely to listen to, but it does nothing to solve the problem you're facing. So it seems to me as I watch debates in Congress over cutting $6 billion or $60 billion from a $3.5 trillion budget and a $1.5 trillion deficit as an effective solution. Anyone who's completed their "goes into's" knows that such trivial number theory is little more than distraction. (Can you say "NPR funding"?)

Yet instead of answering the question of what we're going to do about this country's crushing national debt we're talking about whether either of these insignificant numbers is a budget cut that's draconian in nature. 


When I've gotten over the confusion I feel with such mindless diversion, I am confronted instead with arguments over whether public sector unions should be continue to be allowed to live in symbiotic (if not parasitic) relationship with the politicians in charge of deciding how they are compensated. 


Just as my blood pressure subsides with the inability of political leaders to deal with the broad strokes of the issue however, I find them instead endlessly debating whether these same public sector workers should get pensions instead of 401k's like the rest of us; or contribute as much to their retirements and health care as their private sector counterparts. But we seem to be ignoring these vital questions while focusing instead on what 'rights' a public sector union has, as if they were carved into the Bill of Rights. 


Now Congress is holding hearings on whether the acts of terrorism perpetrated against this country are committed by those believing in the principles of jihad as preached in the Islamic religion. And while there is little argument that there is a radical Islamic agenda behind these attacks, the danger of these jihadists and salient question involved are ignored in favor of a conversation instead about a religious prejudice that might be perpetrated by an equally small percentage of the rest of the population. 


But OK. Perhaps the complexity of the road map where domestic issues are concerned is just too convoluted when dealt with by what are apparently simple political minds. Perhaps instead we should turn to the greater issues of the world. Surely these must be more clear-cut to deal with. 


Certainly a government that has been complaining that it should not have gotten involved in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan can see that meddling in those of Libya might not be a good plan. It seems self-apparent that attempting to again attempt to aid people who think we've interfered far too often in their internal issues and hate us for every attempt we've made is a bad idea. Instead of settling this issue however, we're arguing over whether we should impose a no-fly zone, park a fleet off the coast, or wait for that bastion of decisiveness, the United Nations, to tell us what to do. (After all, their track record at crisis resolution is .... well, never mind that.) 


OK, then maybe we can just decide as a nation whether both sides of the political debate are going to hash over any and all of these topics in a civil manner. Don't get me wrong, if all concerned decide instead to drag out the blackjacks and brass knuckles to settle matters in the streets around each legislative forum, that's OK with me (and might make great Reality TV); but it would be nice if both sides were playing by the same rules. 


Instead we see one side of the debate accusing the other of violence and vitriol for stating their opinions and that accusing side attacking their opponents physically when things don't go their way. But rather than take on even the simple concept of maintaining a level playing field, the discussion focuses on why the side being physically attacked has to be so mean. 


You know come to think of it, I take it all back. I believe that after due consideration and shining a little light on these areas, I prefer the real "Irish Directions". They may not get you where you're going, but they're usually a lot more entertaining. (FYI: The mid-week post of the coming week will be on Thursday instead of Wednesday, so as to coincide with the Holiday - my granddaughter Maggie's birthday.)

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. Evidence that this tragedy had nothing in fact to do with political debate, but with an emotionally troubled individual does nothing to dampen their fervor in calling for this, so in the spirit of such civility, let's set this inconvenient fact aside.

Instead let me begin my own reasoned discussion by saying that while I applaud their sentiment, I question the means by which they hope to achieve this enlightened Erehwon. Let's accept the premise that it would be a laudable goal to see more civility in all aspects of our daily lives, something I've said in this blog more than once. Let's further accept the argument that basing debate in this country, political or otherwise, on the reasoned argument of facts rather than on shouted out ad hominems based solely on usually over-the-top appeals to emotional bias would be an admirable goal.

Even using these premises however, I have a great deal of argument 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 under the First Amendment.

We are told these days that no reasoned political debate in this country can take place unless both sides are 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 with compromise?  Have those calling for such compromise lost touch with the concept of core principles that casting them aside in the spirit of temporary political expediency can in any way be seen as a good?  

If that were the standard of civil discourse, I'm afraid that the United States might still be part of the British Empire. Our Founding Fathers, in the spirit of such compromise, would simply have discarded the natural rights carefully laid out in the Declaration of Independence that King George failed to 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 misstatement might be yet another example of the the failure of the education system in America to teach its own history. It 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 daily 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 confrontation 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 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 most titillating sound-bites they can find (or can manufacture through clever editing) and 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 of true journalism, they see fit to spend the bulk of their time taking the bully pulpit to share with us their supposedly well-informed opinions and pontificate on the few scraps of fact that they see fit to pass on to us. Far from returning to objective reporting of the past that never really existed, they have instead made the difference between the positions of reporter and commentator functionally insignificant.

In looking at the process, I cannot set aside my lingering suspicions as to the real motivation behind 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 always favored incumbents over the challengers and professional politicians over political neophytes.  These attempts always seem to want to limit the money contributed to a new candidate or campaign, but do nothing to limit the accumulated war chests of incumbents.  I cannot help but foresee that any new efforts introduced 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 proven themselves worthy of such trust) for further encroachments. 

The question ultimately before us therefore is not whether the political debate in this country should be more civil, but whether such civility (which seems similarly to exist nowhere in the country) should be judged by and performed under guidelines set up by professional politicians and a sycophantic bureaucracy with the force of law to back up their notion of proper behavior.  

My answer to this is a very civil, but very loud:
  

No Thank You!