| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Harsanyi: Civility is overrated |
| 2009-09-19 |
| By David Harsanyi If you've been paying attention lately, you may be under the impression that the United States was spiraling into mass incivility. The evidence keeps mounting: Congressman Joe Wilson yelling. Serena Williams yelling. Kanye West . . . whatever. All of these uncouth characters have been strung together by critics to establish, indisputably, that there is a societal explosion of boorish and coarse behavior. On the political front, columnist Kathleen Parker calls this "a political era of uninhibited belligerence." House speaker Nancy Pelosi, lamenting an imaginary climate of violence, wishes "we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made." Such a preposterous statement should be actionable. Pelosi, who only recently compared her political opponents to Nazis, isn't exactly a paragon of civil discourse. American politics has always been unsightly. Most of the time, in fact, far worse than today. Have we transformed into so brittle a citizenry that we are unable to handle a raucous debate over the future of the country? If things were quiet, subdued and "civil" in America today, as Pelosi surely wishes, it would only be proof that democracy wasn't working. It's no accident, either, that those in power are generally the ones choking up about the lack of decorum. The truth is, we could use far less bogus civility in Washington. Some of us, for instance, would prefer the superb system of debating used by the British Parliament. Watching those foppish MPs holler "poppycock, sir!" at each other during speeches is a pure pleasure. The British trade courteousness for a more productive, more honest and, most important, more entertaining debate. (The occasional Taiwanese-style free-for-all parliamentary slap-riot wouldn't hurt C-Span's ratings either.) Instead, here at home, stilted House rules dictate that a congressperson may not refer to the government as "something hated, something oppressive." Its members shall not call any unnamed officials "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs" no matter how true the statement may be. And they never, ever can describe the president as a "liar," a "hypocrite" or claim he is "intellectually dishonest." It's a miracle anything is discussed, actually. Obviously, congressman Wilson broke the rules when he rudely blurted out, "You lie!" The vulnerable souls inhabiting Congress -- people who spend half their lives and millions of dollars smearing political opponents as child-hating, warmongering, brown-shirted socialists -- were profoundly offended by this act of rudeness. For many, it was another sign of the intensifying coarseness in American society. Now, tennis (unlike politics) is, without question, one of the most civilized sports in the world. If there was any chance that Williams was going to shove a EXPLETIVE ball down the EXPLETIVE throat of a line judge, it might even be a sport worth watching. After that, despite the overwrought finger-wagging of critics, the incident tells us nothing about society at large -- other than that athletes can be competitive and lose their tempers. Neither does a hammered celebrity rapper making an idiot out of himself on the MTV (the exemplar of proper etiquette, no?) Video Awards. Yes, I too yearn for the bygone era of hip-hop chivalry, but those days, sadly, have passed. Where does that leave us? Exactly where we were 10 years ago -- or 20. I've been around this country a bit and most of the people I've encountered have been extraordinarily civil -- even if they occasionally drink too much or embarrass themselves or curse at each other while playing pick-up basketball. This new focus on civility is meant to cloud another issue. Let's not confuse personal civility with political civility. A "civil" citizenry can mean a pliable citizenry, waiting -- sometimes forever -- to speak their minds. We have no duty to say "please" and "thank you" to elected officials. Not yet. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 If you want to pay for Fred's legal bills, then by all means go for it. Not even that. OS would need to be ready and able to compensate Fred for his time, annoyance AND legal bills - and get Fred's consent ahead of time - before he goes for it here. Blogs can be set up for free or near free, as has been mentioned on numerous previous occasions when you've b*tched about the rules here OS. Go start one of your own or respect this site's rules without pushing against them every time they annoy you. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-09-19 14:12 |
| #5 Do you have a blog OS? |
| Posted by: Black Bart 2009-09-19 14:01 |
| #4 If you want to pay for Fred's legal bills, then by all means go for it. It's Fred's property. That means you either follow the house rules or start your own blog. If you got the energy to bitch about your posting 'inconveniences' here, you surely have the energy to post your stuff on your site. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-09-19 11:16 |
| #3 More viciousness? Fine with me. Give them as much as they gave us -- its the only thing they understand, and not it does not "lower me to their level" (That's what the AUlinsky tactic wants ou to believe), it forces them to deal with me on terms I decide to set. Like I said, fine with me -- but be aware that its not fine with some folks around here, partially for style from some of the mods (which in the real world style counts for nothing, only Winning counts), but mainly for legal reasons (Getting Fred sued would suck, so don't do it). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-09-19 10:46 |
| #2 ...Man, these people should be glad Americans sometimes have zero historical memory. Take a look at the political campaigns of the early and middle 19th Century - they were vicious to an extent we wouldn't even recognize today. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-09-19 08:14 |
| #1 F'n A it is... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2009-09-19 02:04 |