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?
If you haven’t read Steve’s post over at Delaware Libertarian you should. And even though it’s obvious he doesn’t have a horse in this race he makes some valid points. Now allow me to add a few of my own.
Has this election season become overly divisive? Yes. I won’t argue with that point, instead I’ll try and analyze what makes this year more impassioned than 2000 and 2004.
We can start with Obama, but we’re not going to end there. And that’s problem number one. Despite all the labeling (empty suit, the “One”, Messiah) most Obama supporters can see past their candidate to the issues. The fact we receive absolutely no credit for understanding the issues and are constantly accused of hero worship and kool-aid drinking is a major source of conflict. These terms, which have been used since day one, are insulting and pretty much shut down the possibility of civil debate. Which I’m beginning to think is the point of these attacks.
The big news of the week in the Delaware blogosphere has to be Delaware Liberal’s call for donations to the campaign of Rebecca Young. DL readers and staff donated $1640 dollars to Young’s campaign to unseat Joe Miro. If you pledged money or you just want to make a donation, send your check off today to:
Young 4 the 22nd
P.O. Box 1655
Hockessin, DE 19707
Earlier in the week, there were two great debates regarding John Atkins, Delaware’s unique creation, went on here and at Delaware Politics. Burris writes:
Lying profusely is what got John into trouble the first time and one would think he’d learned his lesson. Apparently, that is not the case. Unfortunately, people seem to be buying the “new” John Atkins hook, line and sinker.
And on Sunday, another debate, for those of you counting that’s over 120 comments. Mike, at Down With Absolutes!, predicts Atkins winning by a landslide and kavips skewers Atkins in Profiles of Garbage.
