Could you imagine a US Presidential campaign where one side said of another that by winning their opponent “were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country”? How about a loser in a Presidential election that calls his opponent, “Judas of the West”? Maybe a political operative that would forge a letter to a foreign government and said government’s response would destroy a President? Or, most famously, a handful of men try to spy on their opponents and get caught destroying the man they supported?
Sadly, a lack of civility in American political discourse has been the norm in our history and not just a recent addition in our troubled times. Though sometimes it just doesn’t seem that way. In Reconcilable Differences, Ronald Brownstein writes:
From the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency through Bush’s two bruising terms, American politics has been polarized as sharply as at any point in the past century. Party-line voting in Congress hasn’t been so prevalent since the days of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. In the history of modern polling, Republican and Democratic voters have never held such disparate views of a president’s job performance as they do of Bush’s.
But as the 2008 Presidential Campaign comes to a close, we are once again examining how we got to this place and, more importantly, how we get out of it. Over the past few days, I hope one has seen on Delaware Liberal (we’re having internal debates as well) an examination of our political discourse.
But what is civilitiy? And what is meant by political civility?