This has been a question I've had for some time. At the 2008 elections I had wondered if the vast Democratic majority would learn the lesson's from the past and move to govern in the center and would they return to civility in the way the left and right dealt with issues? We know from the experiences of the last two years they did not (for the sake of fairness the Republicans didn't make much effort either). We also know from this past election they paid a price for their decisions to remain completely partisan.
 |
| (C) Art@BrokenTeapot |
I really think John Stewart nailed it when he critiqued the left and right wing commentators as fanning the flames of hate that are leading to the inability of the government to govern. It was amusing to watch Mr. Olbermann and Ms. Maddow take such great issue with being cast in the same light as Messrs. O'Reilly and Beck. The "clearly we are not as bad as the other guys" defense struck me as, at best, childish in its approach.
I follow a couple of conservative blogs, and will from time to time drop in on a couple of liberal or progressive blogs to see what they are saying. What I find is, for the most part, a waste of time. The Blog owner will write about some perceived crime against his or her view, (both sides do the same thing) and everyone will pile on with a sentence or two of righteous indignation. There isn't any real discussion of a pressing issue, analysis of options available, and second or third order affects from the decision. It is such a pity, we have become a population that can only think in sound bites.
In entertainment (AKA Television and Radio News), I think Mr. Limbaugh has set the standard that all must follow. His attack style of commentary now means that everyone must attack, or they will not have the ratings to continue. I guess therein lies the problem. We drive this kind of virulence because we watch or listen.
As our Representatives struggle for television air time, and national recognition so they may further their individual ambitions they have learned the way to get it is to make outrageous statements and establish unsupportable positions. When that happens one side jumps to attack, and the other is forced to defend. It is even better if we can make the argument personal. I really think TV did this when they started to segregate the country by color. Are you a Red or a Blue? Are you with us or against us?
Maybe... rather than attacking an opinion we disagree with we should listen. There must be some value in the position or the proponent wouldn't have it. What is that value? Is there any other way we can find the same value? Debate and compromise used to be a good thing. To bad it isn't still.
2 comments:
I guess what I want more than civility, though ultimately I do want that, is clarity. I don't begrudge a partisan his roughness so long as he'll honestly lay out the position. Too often, unfortunately, this isn't the case. The partisan will argue against the worst possible presentation of his opponent's argument. It isn't hard to win arguments against straw men. What's harder, but more productive, is to make a good case for a specific policy. I think this is hard for a commentator because their time is severely limited and often they are getting interrupted.
W.B. I agree the ideal would be civil discourse where a position is laid out with clarity. I believe we should be able to accomplish this without calling those with opposing views pinheads, or satanic scum. JgT
Post a Comment