Civility schmivility
My father-in-law died a couple of years ago. I still miss him, especially when I want to talk politics. We couldn’t have been more different. He was loud, opinionated and conservative. Well, ok so we were both opinionated.
Anyway, we used to get into serious pissing matches. I’d come over to the house and he’d be in the basement watching tv. Invariably he’d turn to me as I sat sown and say, “Did you hear what your President wants to do…” And no matter how many times I protested that I didn’t vote for Clinton (I was SWP all the way back then), he’d insist that he was my president and then launch into some tirade about liberals destroying the world.
At this point you might be thinking, “And you MISS this?!?” And you’re right too. But here’s the thing. No matter how much we went at it, at the end of the day we were friends—or at least as close friends as a father-in-law and a son-in-law could be.
He was a dirty arguer and he used all the tricks: straw men, personal attacks, statistics out of context, false dilemmas, etc. But in classic pissing match fashion it was never about winning me over to his side. In fact, I think he would have been disappointed if he did. Instead, it was another thing to talk about, like sports. And the conflict was simply a way to keep it interesting.
When I first met him I was pretty intimidated. I had never experienced this type of interaction. It was passionate on the one hand, but with a distance on the other. Nothing was personal. For me growing up, politics and religion were off-limits. People might disagree and disagreement was upsetting.
I’m not sure where this came from. Maybe I’m succumbing to a ‘Golden Age’ fallacy, but when I talk to my own Dad now, he tells me about growing up in a family that always argued politics. And he talks about how he had friends with lots of different political points of view and they also argued. It seems somewhere between his generation (the Korean war guys, stuck between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers) and now things changed. I like to blame the Baby Boomers for making politics personal. But I like to blame them for everything. For whatever reason, these days we seem balkanized in terms of politics. I’m sure I have very few conservative friends, if any.
I heard that in his State of the Union speech, Bush called for a return to civility in political discourse. I think he’s off the mark. Civility has never been a part of politics. What we need is a return levity. We need to stop defining ourselves by our politics. Because, when being a conservative or liberal is an integral part of who you are, then any questioning of that position can only be taken as a personal attack. Where’s the fun in that?
6 Comments:
As for Bush's call for a "return to civility" Right. He more or less stated flat out that anyone who disagrees with his policies are simply using "hindsight" and add nothing of value to debate. This is an obvious reference to the "libz" bashing that is the constant theme of right-wing talk radio.
The Republican party has determined that picking up and running with that tactic is going to be the way to win in the future. I think that all you're going to hear from the right in the run-up to elections is that anyone who disagrees with Republican policies is a member of the "looney-left" that don't really care about issues, and only stake out positions based on whether it might make Bush look bad.
Actually, I think there is a lot of truth in that with regard to the Democratic Party leaders - for example, do they really give two shits about lobbying? No. But they will try to point the "culture of corruption" finger at the Republicans without making any real initiatives to get the big money out of politics.
As for levity: Hmmm. I agree that identifying personally with one particular party or another leads to little benefit. Reading comments on blogs is tantamount to watching one team root for "Team Liberal Democrats" and another team root for "Team Conservative Republicans." Neither side is willing to take a hard look at non-partisan analysis because everyone just wants to "root" for a "winner."
But it's impossible not to take what's going on in this country "personally."
But it's impossible not to take what's going on in this country "personally."
I guess that depends on whether you really buy the line that the country is going to hell in a handbasket. I'm pretty convinced that GW is not a great guy. But I think it's really worth taking the time to examine whether he is the worst thing that ever happened or if the Republican ascendency is so out of control.
I recognize that it's frustrating when the opposition controls all the branches of government. But I'm not ready to take it all so seriously.
Libby E.,
I don't look at as the "opposition" controlling everything. That seems to imply the the Dems are my "team," and they aren't. Things were bad under Clinton. They wouldn't have been great under Kerry. But the last five years are as bad as anything I've ever experienced - and that includes Nixon and Reagan.
It is astounding to me that anyone can not take seriously the level of arrogance, the level of corporatism, the level of cronyism, the level of hate-mongering and fear-mongering, etc., etc.,.
But what makes it even harder for me to take is that under Reagan and Nixon at least it seemed like there were viable alternatives - that an opposition existed. Today, the opposition that has any degree of power are cartoon characters, and people who have solid ideas are quite successfully labeled as "bin Ladin symphasizers" by the fright-wing.
That's why Bush's SOTU was particular disturbing; even more than in the past, he's taking his cues from Rush Limbaugh in how to consolidate his power.
Dumpy,
My point is simply that though these are people that we disagree with they are people. The stakes may be high, but that's all the more reason not to take ourselves so seriously. And I'm not laying it solely at the feet of liberals. Conservatives need to simmer down to.
Like I tell my son, "everybody poops."
Libbey E -
Here's my take on what you're saying: All this partisan squabbling between Dems and Repubs effecively only creates a smokescreen for them to contunue doing just what they've been doing.
The "culture of corruption" finger-pointing by people such as Hillary, at the same time as they fail to advocate for any substantive measures of reform, is a case in point.
I've read quite a few commentaries by people like Pat Buchanan and William Buckley that have been more on point than anything I've seen come out of the DNC.
To me, a big part of the problem is that no one any longer makes any distinctions between "Dems" and "libz" and "leftists" and "loonies," and no one makes any distinctions between "Republicans" and the "Christian right" and "conservatives.
The media conflates everything because this nonsense partisan bickering sells advertisement, and politicians like it because they can use such partisanship to consolidate political power and collect campaign contributions.
But everyone buys into this game. MoveOn has essentially become little more than an extension of the Democratic Party political machine. Fundamentalist Christians have become a tool of the Republican Party machine.
I guess what we need is a multi-party system (as if that will ever happen).
Dumpy,
I think there are two issues here. One is the form of the debate between me and my father-in-law. I totally agree that that sort of back and forth pissing match is not good for media discussions and that it reduces the argument to entertainment.
It's the second issue that is more important to me: that we don't let political persuasion get in the way of personal relationships. I could have been just like my brother-in-laws and completely dismissed him as a rightwing nutjob. Instead, I listened and engaged with him. And over time I got something out of it. And, I'll admit I thought it was fun.
What I believe what let me engage with him was that I was able to not take my own positions so seriously. So there was a way for me to think about our arguments not at face value.
Post a Comment
<< Home