The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

[martybegan]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats. While sides can debate and scream over who is to blame, and who's rhetoric is the cause of all the hostility seen poltical disagreements, my impression is that the current state has nothing to do with a persons beliefs, but how they sees the other sides proponents, and the motivations applied to the people on the "other side of the bench"

Listening or reading a person's position on a given topic, and thier opinion on the validity of the opposing postion on the same topic, one more often than not gets the feeling that said person not only thinks their opposites position is wrong, but they are "wrong" as a person in general. That those holding an opposing viewpoint are not just wrong on said point, but have something wrong with themselves at a basic level. The idea that a person just as rational and understanding as you are can hold an opposite position on some topic seems beyond the grasp of some people. It almost gets to the point that in order to justify your own position, some fatal flaw must be found in the person supporting the opposite, that there is no longer the concept of being "wrong" on a topic, but that there has to be some sinister underlying reason for someone to have an opinion differing from yours.

Now as I am not 250 years old, I do not know if this is the same way it always was in our political environment, that this is basically the status quo over 2 and a half centuries of bilateral politics. Maybe the internet has allowed for a more anonymous and vicous type of political commentator to flourish, and this has had an influence on more mainstream media types. Has our political arena gotten meaner? Are we as a people incapable of seeing someone holding a differing opinion than ours as holding a valid, albeit wrong, point?

This brings us to the question; Do you think that the people on the other side of the aisle can have an opinion and not be stupid/evil/greedy/facist/communist/sheeple/goverment agents? I know on some topics there are easily defined right sides and wrong sides, but most of our political discourse is on far greyer areas. Punishing murders is something everyone can agree on, but how to punish is anothering thing entirely. As an example, can reasonable people be on both sides of a debate on the death penalty?

 

[Oddball]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats....

Only because authoritarian left wing hacks, along with their useful idiot hack fellow travelers in the lamestream media, want to cower behind the dead and wounded, in order to move forward their desire to limit and outright censor the speech of all who have the temerity to oppose them.

The good news is that few people, outside of the loony left, are buying into their transparent and cynical political ploy.

 

[Jackson]

I think the root cause is that people are always in the "blaming mode." Case in point, how many decades must we go back to blame our current crisis of the housing bubble and crisis or the wars we are engaged in now?

Why don't we talk about solutions instead. The Democrats that, the Republicans this, The boneaheads this. Where does that get this but inflamed rhetoric in return? We ask each other when will Congress listen to us. Maybe they are. Listen to us! Maybe we are the fools.

 

[amrchaos]

First off, there are people on both sides of the isle that can discuss their ideas civilly. In fact, I will take two extremists, Ron Paul and Denis Kucinch. Civil minded individuals that sometimes are called "hacks" by members of their own party.

Now on the other hand, you are up against a mountain of nonsensical dribble that premeates politics like a stench in a porta-potty! Civility in politics, huh? What is next, civility in boxing?

 

[30x90]

The shootings in Arizona have brought the concept of civility in political discussion to the front of message boards, pundit blogs, and all of the mainstream media formats. While sides can debate and scream over who is to blame, and who's rhetoric is the cause of all the hostility seen poltical disagreements, my impression is that the current state has nothing to do with a persons beliefs, but how they sees the other sides proponents, and the motivations applied to the people on the "other side of the bench"

Listening or reading a person's position on a given topic, and thier opinion on the validity of the opposing postion on the same topic, one more often than not gets the feeling that said person not only thinks their opposites position is wrong, but they are "wrong" as a person in general. That those holding an opposing viewpoint are not just wrong on said point, but have something wrong with themselves at a basic level. The idea that a person just as rational and understanding as you are can hold an opposite position on some topic seems beyond the grasp of some people. It almost gets to the point that in order to justify your own position, some fatal flaw must be found in the person supporting the opposite, that there is no longer the concept of being "wrong" on a topic, but that there has to be some sinister underlying reason for someone to have an opinion differing from yours.

Now as I am not 250 years old, I do not know if this is the same way it always was in our political environment, that this is basically the status quo over 2 and a half centuries of bilateral politics. Maybe the internet has allowed for a more anonymous and vicous type of political commentator to flourish, and this has had an influence on more mainstream media types. Has our political arena gotten meaner? Are we as a people incapable of seeing someone holding a differing opinion than ours as holding a valid, albeit wrong, point?

This brings us to the question; Do you think that the people on the other side of the aisle can have an opinion and not be stupid/evil/greedy/facist/communist/sheeple/goverment agents? I know on some topics there are easily defined right sides and wrong sides, but most of our political discourse is on far greyer areas. Punishing murders is something everyone can agree on, but how to punish is anothering thing entirely. As an example, can reasonable people be on both sides of a debate on the death penalty?

When I was looking over the site, this is what convinced me to join.
Good, thoughtful post.

 

[Oddball]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Oddball. Civil discourse do exist. But it is boring.

Just that incediary remarks makes money.

 

[martybegan]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

I did kind of address that in my statement about not being 250 years old.

and maybe duels are a good way to handle it, over time you lower the population of hotheaded people by basic attrition.

 

[mdn2000]

I think the root cause is that people are always in the "blaming mode." Case in point, how many decades must we go back to blame our current crisis of the housing bubble and crisis or the wars we are engaged in now?

Why don't we talk about solutions instead. The Democrats that, the Republicans this, The boneaheads this. Where does that get this but inflamed rhetoric in return? We ask each other when will Congress listen to us. Maybe they are. Listen to us! Maybe we are the fools.

How can you have a solution to a problem when we are not in agreement at to what the problem is.

Our current crisis is not to blame on the housing bubble, our current crisis is the fault of our politicians. It was there actions that created the everything that happened. Funny, Bush Jr. bailed out the banks, Bush Sr. bailed out the banks. Was there an investigation after either?

I see civil discourse, I see the rhetoric as civil.

A call to civility, please define who is not civil with their speech and please send them to the Gulag. Seems like the Marxist demanded civility. The also defined civility, the result was nobody spoke freely.

All this Rhetoric for civility obfuscates the failure of the Government, both Republican and Democrat. If I am not clear and state the Republicans as well as Democrats some folks will mistake me as partisan.

I am clear, our government is a complete failure. We just have not been told yet, they are crossing their fingers that we succeed and pay the bill, somehow, before the truth of our Government's failure is clear to all.

It is time to not be partisan and throw them all out of the White House and Congress.

Maybe then we can address our bloated wasteful naive mess we call government.

Civil, I have been civil in the face of all my governments failure. Now they will demand I remain civil with laws that protect their power.

They see the writing on the wall, they are all on the way out. As soon as both parties compromise and become civil the public will be the loser.

 

[Oddball]

Hey Oddball. Civil discourse do exist. But it is boring.

Just that incediary remarks makes money.

Jason Lewis and Dennis Miller, amongst numerous others, are civil all day long and they don't seem to have any trouble keeping their programs profitable and on the air.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

Not true, big myth. Name 5 duels whose purpose was to settle a political dispute. If they really were the way they used to settle differences back then-it should be a piece of cake no?

And remember Hamilton-Burr was a personal issue, and no political issue was settled as a result.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Oddball. Civil discourse do exist. But it is boring.

Just that incediary remarks makes money.

Jason Lewis and Dennis Miller, amongst numerous others, are civil all day long and they don't seem to have any trouble keeping their programs profitable and on the air.

I guess I have to abridge my statement, Incediary remarks SOMETIMES makes money!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm just not seeing killing everywhere due to political discourse. It's just not happening. What is disturbing though is how politicians are quick to hold us in utter discontempt, accusing us a "too stupid, simpletons, dumb".

 

[Oddball]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

I did kind of address that in my statement about not being 250 years old.

and maybe duels are a good way to handle it, over time you lower the population of hotheaded people by basic attrition.

Well, there is more to the story than just duels.

Prior to the earlier parts of the last century, hardly a political campaign would go by without loose accusations of drunkenness, bastard children and other rather nefarious and dastardly acts, charged between the principals.

Today's biggest dirtballs, like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner, are amateur pikers in comparison.

 

[Oddball]

Hey Oddball. Civil discourse do exist. But it is boring.

Just that incediary remarks makes money.

Jason Lewis and Dennis Miller, amongst numerous others, are civil all day long and they don't seem to have any trouble keeping their programs profitable and on the air.

I guess I have to abridge my statement, Incediary remarks SOMETIMES makes money!

I don't know about that....I tuned in to Airhead America numerous times and could find little more than incendiary remarks sprinkled *ahem* liberally with vitriol....Where are they now?

Sure, even though you can say that their business model sucked on toast (which it did), if they had something that those who lean in their political direction would want to buy, they'd still be selling it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive never had a problem with civil discourse. But then I cant control others, nor do i have a desire to.

I do think it's amazing that despite this incident having absolutely nothing to do with civil discourse, we are talking about civil discourse.

 

[mdn2000]

The root cause of the lack of "Civil Discourse"

My first comment notwithstanding, this kind of presumes there ever really was this "civil discourse" thing we've been hearing hyped as of late....If anything, the discourse, as "rancorous" as it is alleged to be today, is a far cry from that of the nation's founding.

In those days, you settled your heated disagreements by duel....How civil.

Not true, big myth. Name 5 duels whose purpose was to settle a political dispute. If they really were the way they used to settle differences back then-it should be a piece of cake no?

And remember Hamilton-Burr was a personal issue, and no political issue was settled as a result.

Why five, I say name a hundred duels, if you cannot name a hundred without google your a liar. Actually, name a thousand, go ahead, I dare you, name a thousand, if you cannot name a thousand I am right.

 

[martybegan]

Ive never had a problem with civil discourse. But then I cant control others, nor do i have a desire to.

I do think it's amazing that despite this incident having absolutely nothing to do with civil discourse, we are talking about civil discourse.

Very good point. I guess its all about how the event is framed by those who report it.

 

[editec]

The root cause of uncivil discourse?

Stupid people who take their queues about what is appropriate from propaganda pigs on TV and the radio, that's why.

 

[California Girl]

I'm not convinced that this whole 'civil discourse' thing is the root cause. I think, perhaps, the root cause of why things are so much more heated these days is our media. They have lost the ability to present anything without spin.

Now, it appears that even our public officials think it's ok to spin. Take the Sheriff in Tucson.... whose name escapes me at present.... why is it that he thought it was appropriate to voice his personal political views as part of a briefing to the media? Why is it that so many of the lefties on this board don't have a problem with that. Because, if he had blamed the liberal media, they'd have been screaming like banshees.

It seems to me that we have a couple of major issues in our system:

1. Our media are incompetent fools.

2. Those incompetent fools are influencing other incompetent fools.