Michael Gerson and E.J. Dionne both wrote about civility and its importance in our national discourse. They took different political parties to task and I think they are both right.
We need to change the tone so we can have a better debate.
We need to change the tone so we can have a better debate.
2 comments:
Al Franken the comedian/commentator was very shrill and over the top. Candidate Franken has been much more restrained and professional. It will be interesting to see what Senator Franken (I assume) will be like in demeanor.
I am reminded of a Simpsons episode where the character obviously supposed to be the Philly Phanatic was in Congress, and (in full costume) was depicted giving a very serious speech on (I forget) zoning ordinances or something. It was funny only because it was so discordant. I smile imagining Al Franken saying "I would like to acknowledge my esteemed colleague from the great state of Alabama, but a point of order," in the grave voices they all use on the floor of the Senate.
Seriously, more civility would be an improvement. I don't know if it will happen, though. Every time Coulter is on CNN and Beck is on Fox their ratings go up - there's money to be made with stinging acrimony and shouting. I mean, seriously, what would Coulter have to say to *not* be invited back? I cannot think of anything she hasn't said...
I also think there's a certain amount of self-gratification that "very serious" pundits engage in when they very seriously call for more civility, more bipartisanship, more reasonable centrism. They (I'm thinking primarily of Broder here, but he's only the highest profile offender) define themselves as the "reasonable center" and congratulate themselves on how temperate and sober they are, and use that self-appointed status to expound on "how things oughtta be." Which is all bullshit and posturing.
Also annoying is the notion that bipartisanship and compromise are virtues in and of themselves. Yes, I'll grant that when possible it's best to have polity and consensus. But there's nothing wrong with the idea that people disagree on stuff, and when compromise is impossible or unnecessary, it's OK for one party's arguments to "win."
I'm getting off topic here...
One problem is that for the sake of civility John Kerry did not become president. If they day the first Swift Boat add came out, he started calling W a draft dodging coward who stood behind his daddy during Nam and behind the Swift Boaters now while challenging a man who left not only his own blood, but friends on the battlefield, Kerry would have won.
Kerry chose to be civil. To be above the fray. And W won the fight, the battle, and the war.
So, there is no doubt the debate would be better if it were more civil, and Wanda Sykes certainly does add anything more to the discussion by saying Limbaugh should die than he adds to the conversation by comparing feminists to Nazis. But, my response to calls for civility, is we'll fucking see. Things are fine right now, and if we want to keep trying to talk about ideas that's fine. But the first anti-American punch thrown in the 2010 race needs to be answered with an avalanch of vitriol. The stakes are too high.
Post a Comment