Civility Lost?
Charlie Cook of the Cook Report wrote an op-ed for RealClearPolitics.com in which he laments the lack of civil debate in Washington. In reading the op-ed, though, I found many of his arguments to be straw men deserving to be flattened. Here’s a sampling:
I blame this problem first on the rise of political food-fight shows on cable television, on radio talk shows, and most recently on the Internet, where political discourse has become the Wild West.
Actually, Charlie, you’re only half right. When lefty bloggers ratchet up the hatred, their readership jumps. The more outrageous, the better the ‘ratings’. When center-right bloggers ratchet up the hatred and nonsense, their readership drops like a rock There’s an easy explanation for that: When I read a righty blogger like Hugh Hewitt or Captains Quarters, it’s because I expect to gain new insight based on verifiable information. As an example, just in the last 2 weeks, Hugh’s taught a ConLaw class as it pertains to the NSA wiretapping and Captain Ed’s schooled us on Tuesday’s Canadian elections.
When a lefty blogger says of Mrs. Alito “Do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?”, am I supposed to take that seriously? And this is the norm, not the exception. It’s impossible to not notice the total lack of seriousness. The lefty bloggers are indeed the wild, wild west, Charlie, but I’d dare you to prove that on the right.
Although televised left-right sparring matches go way back, at least to the 60 Minutes segment of the 1970s pitting conservative James Kilpatrick against liberal Shana Alexander, the bounds of decency were respected as the other side’s views were attacked. But talk radio erased those boundaries. Talk radio is tailored for like-minded people, and the host’s goal is to promote outrage among listeners. The clear purpose is to inflame, not inform.
While I understand Cook’s argument here, the truth is that talk radio didn’t have as much to do with the change as Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan governed, defense-minded Democrats became Reagan Democrats. When Newt Gingrich started showing the corruption of the Left’s leaders, like Jim Wright, Reagan Democrats sthifted parties.
Now all that’s left are a handful of centrist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman and a ton of fire-breathing Kossacks. If you take a look at the arguments, it’s obvious that the John Murtha’s and Nancy Pelosi’s, the Ted Kennedy’s and Howard Dean’s of the world aren’t seriously debating the issues. Their talking points are so out of touch with reality that it’s impossible to debate them.
After all, how do you debate someone that refuses to identify and use the truth?
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:31 am
I would add the entire top-tier of Righty blogs as examples to prove your point. No one can refute the civility of TBSC, Power Line, PoliPundit, Michelle Malkin, Steyn Onlne, Victor Davis Hanson, et al.
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:37 am
[...] I’m happy to know that there are others that agree with my premise: Bullcrap! BOTH SIDES DON’T DO IT. [...]
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Good post, but the last line says it all: How, really, does one argue with inveterate and incontravertable liars?
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
It does take two to tango. I recall a lot of the incivility started when the Republicans were trying to take back Washington. Now that they have it back, is it any surprise that the Democrats are using the same tactics? What goes around comes around. If you sling mud, you shouldn’t complain when some of it comes back at you.
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I had the same reaction. Republicans aren’t perfect — see, e.g., Pat Robertson — but everything is “compared to what.” Cook’s conflation of Rs and Ds is the Capitol Hill equivalent of the supposed Mid-East “cycle of violence”–and equally useless as an analytical tool.
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm
I say that the root of the problem Cook is trying to explain stems from two things:
1. The protest movement of the 60’s devolved into a shout to be heard, don’t let the other guy speak, any form of protest is conceivable and acceptable (which gets us the taking over of government or university buildings, naked protests, the throwing of pies, food or feces and even worse). If you look at any of the driving force protest groups of the left today (MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc) you’d see them led by college age kids who don’t know any better and who have never held a real job and older “hippy-types” who are trying to relive their glory days of the 60’s. Those are the people who are determining the course of the discussion on the left.
2. The Democratic Party’s lock step Party Platform. Woe to the Democrat who’s Pro-Life or pro school vouchers. That candidate may win a local election but he’d never win nationally if he remained a Democrat. I’m surprised the Democratic party hasn’t lost more Catholics to the Republicans. My Catholic parents would be aghast at the abortion on demand policies of the Democrats today and the fact that they sent six kids to parochial schools probably gives you a good idea where they would stand on school vouchers. The only candidate I think my parents would look up to today would be Joe Lieberman who is being ostricized by the party because of his views on the War on Terror (Joe’s not marching in lock step - so Joe must pay a price in today’s Democratic Party).
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Ya know, Matthew and No Oil For Pacifists, my immediate reaction was, ok, so what? Then I got to thinking about it, and I’m having the darndest time thinking up cases where lying to discredit nominees, lying to discredit a sitting prez, etc., commonly happened when the donkeys ruled the roost.
Yes, Nixon and his gang lied prolifically, but they were caught (rightfully so), discredited and punished.
Now you’ve got a souse who has killed and politicked his way out of that, who belongs to a men-only club, attacking a judicial nominee for having joined a college club in order to support retaining ROTC at his school, and who created the deceitful procedure known now as “Borking”! Funny, I don’t recall such a procedure promulgated by an elephant. Just getting on in years and can’t remember things like I used to, I guess.
And as far as bringing up Mr. Robertson? What’s he got to do with any sane argument, especially one equating him to mainstream Republicans? That’s as valid as me equating Mr. Lieberman with Michael Moore. It just ain’t so.
As a final note, what is it about throwing theocracy into every rant against the Repub’s? If the religious right had wanted to take over the country, they would have done it in the early twentieth century. I would be (and am) more worried about a theocracy of the left, one that chills all dissent. What most libs/leftists/moonbats don’t comprehend is that it is only a matter of time before one of their thoughts is not in lockstep with the “leaders” (read: ministers, bishops, priests, mullahs, whatever) and they will be banished from public discourse forever.
January 22nd, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Very good post. I really do think that much of the vitriol and venom comes from those on the Left. There’s a world of difference between the language used on many blogs on the right compared to those on the left. Hugh Hewitt’s a fine example of what public discourse should be like.
Those on the left like to characterize talk radio as hate radio; but I challenge any reasonable person to listen to Hugh Hewitt, or Dennis Prager, and tell me that they are examples of hate-filled radio.
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Hate speech to a liberal is any speech with which they disagree. This is a lot like when a Democratic senator describes Extremist positions on things like Abortion as Mainstream, and the Conservative as the “fringe right wing.”
Excuse me, but, did they NOT see how they got their behinds handed to them during the last Congressional elections? Did they not notice the sheer number of redness in the demographical maps?
Living in Los Angeles, I’m fairly used to pseudo-intellectuals re-writing the definition of words so that their position can seem de facto superior to that of someone’s with whom they disagree. And so therefore, while some might bite, chew and swallow everything that comes out of Howard Dean, and John Murth and Ted Kennedy’s mouth–anyone that lifts a finger to uncover the truth is hardly surprised to realize that practically nothing they say has a connection to reality.