Civil Discourse
I happened across this post by Josh Chafetz today and I just wanted to add a hearty amen. I'm always reassured to find others who are disturbed by the lack of civil discourse in modern political - and everyday - life.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge that, on almost every issue, there are people on both sides who are both intelligent and well-meaning? That doesn't mean that neither side is right, or that you should give up arguing for your side. It just means paying the other side some respect, listening to their position, trying honestly to grapple with it. I'm not saying that there aren't malevolent and/or stupid people out there -- but they're on both sides of every issue, and on almost no issue is everyone on one side stupid and/or malevolent. It's fine to point out when someone is saying something stupid (or when someone is being malevolent). If they're malevolent and/or stupid often enough, it's fine to conclude that they, as people, are malevolent and/or stupid. But to conclude that everyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto malevolent and/or stupid ... well, I envy your certainty, but you frighten me. That kind of certainty is precisely what extremist movements of all kinds -- left and right -- are made of.Maybe I'm more attuned to this because most of my best friends have long disagreed with me on almost every topic. In college, my best friends were the far-left fringe. Two of my roommates and closest friends are now union organizers. One of my ex-girlfriends was a national leader in the student anti-sweatshop movement (she had the great good fortune to be criticized, by name, by Kathy Lee Gifford on national TV because she was leading a campaign against Gifford's clothing line). I didn't agree with them about much, politics-wise, but we were all great friends, and we all had tremendous respect for one another. And it was partly because of that friendship and that respect that we had some of the most intellectually rigorous and satisfying political discussions that I've ever been fortunate enough to be party to.
So, please. A little civility. A little respect. A little elevation of the discourse. It won't hurt, I promise.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Civil Discourse.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.0xdeadbeef.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2856
Nice find. Long ago I decided not to engage in political or philosophical discussions with those who would use illogic or ad hominem attacks. If those involved in a particular discussion are unable to stick to the topic and remain civil, I have absolutely zero interest in participating.
I'm not sure of the context here, but if it's a plea to big-j Journalism (i.e., dead tree and boob tube media) and little-j journalism (i.e., the blogosphere) then the notion of discourse fits poorly at best. Big-j journalism sells eyeballs to advertisers. Period*. To the degree that bloggers emulate or comment on the corporate media, they're simply extending the reach of corporate interests to a new venue. Sure, there are discursive elements to blogolalia -- call and response ad nauseaum -- but they're mostly echoing the manufactured debate du jour. And that debate is manufactured the way it is for a reason: achieving, maintaining and extending power. If that's your goal, then discourse equates to weakness. Respecting your opponent? Good God, man, the next thing that will happen is you might agree with him.
The fact that Chavetz had to look to his social life for examples of civility should have been the first clue.
*The publication of the Pentagon Papers and Woodward and Bernstein are the only counterexamples I can think of. My respect for Kay Graham aside, I think both events arose from self-interest, not necessarily the country's interest. Can those interests coincide? Pretty to think so.
Can we still publically excoriate Michael Moore-loving Commies from Colorado?