Both Oars In Civil Discourse

Oct 2, 2009

The youngest of eight, I was quick witted before I was mature enough to know better than to say whatever satirical or ironic thought that came to mind. Being clever with words was a survival skill in a big family. It took me a long time to learn that every well-turned phrase does not merit utterance. I learned this lesson the hard way—not so much from embarrassment as from the realization that words arranged just right can do a lot of harm.  Some things are just too uncivil to say.

 

Indeed, words can be as violent as any other weapon. I first observed this on a political level when I was a freshman in college. During a very tense confrontation between fraternity supporters on one side and feminist and gay rights activists on the other, someone started the chant “How do you know your parents are straight?” Although the university had justifiably stopped one of the fraternities from hanging a female mannequin in effigy to express their frustration with being reviewed for dismissal, nothing was done to stop this chant engineered purposely to disturb and provoke a response. The intent of this goading chant was to threaten and unnerve the opposition every bit as much as the hanging mannequin. It was a violent, uncivil thing to say the least, yet it went unchecked by the institution.   

 

I thought of this experience when I read the warning by U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), son of the recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy, that the health care debate was heating to a possible flashpoint. He supported his concern that things may turn violent by citing a slogan from a popular mass manufactured sign carried in a recent Washington protest march. The signs stated, “Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.” This goes beyond uncivil; it is grotesque. The person or group who authorized that sign has no class. Anyone who carried that sign should be ashamed.

 

Since pictures can speak a thousand words, images are able to deliver more shock than slogans, especially doctored images. To punctuate their analysis that Obama is promoting a socialist agenda, the LaRouche Political Action Committee presented a doctored picture of President Obama with a Hitler mustache captioned with the question “Is this your President?”  The day after Iran’s President absurdly denied the holocaust yet again, a Jewish protestor at the U.N. doctored a picture of Ahmadinejad to resemble Hitler to make their point. Vilification of this sort, no matter how politically convenient is still unacceptable.     

 

Continuing on the Hitler theme, recent appearances by conservative political commentator Michelle Malikin led reporters to dig up that she was referred to as the “Eva Braun of Oberlin.”  Being from Ohio and familiar with Oberlin College, I have to admit I was surprised that Malikin attended this beyond liberal school.  Once over that shock, I found the fact that journalists repeated the poor taste displayed by her contemporary classmates in comparing her to Hitler’s girlfriend even more shocking. I am sure it was not funny then and it still is not today. At least the college students had the defense of being young and immature—what do the seasoned reporters have to say for themselves? How insensitive would a person have to be to compare a Filipina to the girlfriend of the man who brought on WW II? The name of the Hirohito’s wife must have slipped their minds.

 

Reflecting on the above reminds me of the inclusion of the atheistic billboard in the nativity scene displayed in Washington’s Capitol building in Spokane this past Christmas. This already got plenty of press in December, but it is sufficiently mean spirited to merit repeating.  Supposedly to achieve social equity, a sign provided by the Freedom from Religion Foundation was placed in the nativity display which stated in part, “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” As many commentators pointed out, this sign did not provide an alternative point of view—it was simply meant to be insulting.      

 

I share Mr. Kennedy’s concern that the debate on healthcare is being overtaken with “violent rhetoric.” But, I would not limit this concern to this topic alone. As evidenced by the above, we seem to be experiencing a general decline in the quality of public discourse.  This is no trivial matter in a democracy. Government by the people can too easily devolve into mob rule when fear and prejudice carry the day. Therefore, it is incumbent on us all to insure that civil discourse remain just that, civil.