Toxic Discourse and the Struggle for Civility
by: Claire Snyder-Hall on January 18th, 2011 | 7 Comments »
This is my first post on Tikkun Daily. I’ve been struggling with what to say. I was invited to cover the new Christian Right beat, and I am very excited about that prospect. I am particularly interested in the ways in which Christian Right leaders and their allies (from Tea Partiers to libertarians to neo-conservatives) try to lay claim to the legacy of American republicanism — a legacy I would claim for progressives. I am also interested in conservative appeals to women, many of whom are struggling in the wake of an only partially finished feminist revolution.
While doing such work can be demoralizing, it is important to remember that most people are not zealots or extremists, and so rejoinders to Christian Right arguments are aimed not at the hard-core leadership but rather at their more moderate constituents. Like everyone, conservative Americans have many often contradictory desires, values, and beliefs, and it’s important for progressives to figure out a way to speak to them in a positive way. Appealing to shared religious values or traditions has the advantage of providing some common ground for discourse, which is one of the things I like about the Tikkun project.
I believe in the ideal of engaging respectfully with others across difference, but, honestly, I often find it hard to do, especially when the claims of the other side seem unreasonable or unprincipled. For example, I have found the angry defensiveness that has emerged from some on the Right in the face of the reasonable contention that vitriolic rhetoric might have had some impact on the Arizona tragedy to be, frankly, exasperating. No one is saying that uncivil discourse directly caused the shooting — or that Sarah Palin is literally an “accessory to murder” with “blood on her hands,” as she so dramatically put it during her Hannity interview on Martin Luther King Day.
The claim being made by liberals and progressives is more subtle and complicated than that: When the public is constantly barraged by anti-government rhetoric and violent imagery, it can increase negative opinions about the government and desensitize people towards violence. Or it can fuel and work to legitimize violent anti-government feelings that already exist. Moreover, the glorification of guns and violence permeates our culture, and so even people who are not directly involved in politics can be influenced by that discourse. People do not exist in a vacuum.
This type of claim is not a partisan one. Conservatives make similar analytical claims all the time. For example, social conservatives frequently argue that valorizing premarital sex makes it more acceptable and thus increases the likelihood that young people will engage in it. That is the justification for abstinence-only education in the public schools. They make similar arguments about pornography and homosexuality. Thus, conservatives don’t reject the contention that there is a connection between speech and action in all cases, only when it benefits them. I find that frustrating.
When Sarah Palin compares her critics to some of the most vicious, irrational, and murderous anti-Semites Europe has ever known, while pretending to call for reconciliation, it makes me angry, and I want to respond in kind. However, it’s important to remember Hillel’s famous comment, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” — a principle that Christians call the Golden Rule.
Most Americans want a less toxic political discourse, and so do I. According to a Washington Post-ABC poll, 82% of Americans judge our political discourse to be negative, and almost 80% applaud the reconciliatory tone set by President Obama, including 71% of Republicans.
Perhaps that is why most specifically Christian Right websites — as opposed to broader right-wing sites like newrepublic.com — surprisingly have not used the Arizona shooting to score political points or increase division. In fact, most don’t even reference the event. That is probably a prudent decision on their part, since fall-out from the Tucson shooting has ultimately helped Obama and hurt Palin and their Tea Party allies, according to the poll. At the same time, however, it is probably a good thing for all of us to dial down the drama and focus on how we can move forward in a positive direction.
“This type of claim is not a partisan one. Conservatives make similar analytical claims all the time. For example, social conservatives frequently argue that valorizing premarital sex makes it more acceptable and thus increases the likelihood that young people will engage in it. That is the justification for abstinence-only education in the public schools. They make similar arguments about pornography and homosexuality. Thus, conservatives don’t reject the contention that there is a connection between speech and action in all cases, only when it benefits them.” A fabulous point. Great first column!
A problem is, in the conversations that I am involved in on this subject, it is only people on the left who
“dial down the drama” and seek conciliation and compromise while the other side blasts away and does terrible damage. I just had an image of young girls in the ’60s putting flowers into the barrels of guns held by lines of soldiers. Lovely picture it was, but you get my point. No, we don’t have to be nasty and hateful in speech, but you — like so many — seem to be saying that there are two choices — nasty and hateful in speech or ridiculously and dangerously spineless in speech.
Thats a easy one to do – Just add up what they do.
1. preach – you have to be a slave to isreal – if you want to get to heaven – example: You must always bless isreal – no matter what they do – for it’s from god.
2. preach you must always follow your leaders – for they always do good. example bush was considered reborn jesus
3. preach it’s a good thing to steal from others – for there stuff was really god given to you.
4 preach put on your breast plates – for all the rest will come to destroy your thoughts of what we have told you.
so see thats the basics – they preach there intitled too – a very Elitist view of Life.
Great first post, Claire!
I’m very wary of the calls for civility because “civility” has historically been a tool of the owning class to maintain privilege and position (dominance). I’ve especially been thinking a lot about the issue lately for obvious reasons and I notice three conclusions (so far):
• False equivalence: It’s a common meme in current discourse that Left and Right engage in vitriolic/uncivil speech equally of of the same quality and nature. To the contrary, I’ve only heard violent speech and hate speech from the Right, it’s just NOT a Lefty phenom–except in exasperation in the face of intractable ideology that puts belief over empirical data and where said ideology has a life-death/survival impact on those who do not share it.
• The Type of Uncivility: I’ve not heard Lefty speech that advocates “reloading” or using mystical “surveyor’s” icons that coincidentally resemble minimalistic crosshairs, or portrays opposing politicians using racist icons/graphics, etc. Lefty “rage” is far and few in between and typically, quickly dissapates as soon as it’s been uttered (and almost always comes with an apology after, which is then exploited as if its blood in the water). As a lower class person I cannot get too testy in public– cops in conservative towns are more like paramilitaries and prefer to draw-down on a guy yelling in public, unless he’s yelling tea party stuff, then somehow it’s a non-incident incident.
• Needs: When I go for the “needs” approach to the civility thing, what are the unmet needs for conservatives to get their opponents to be more civil (because their belief they are being persecuted by the Left is more powerful than empirical data that demonstrates actual eliminationist frames, terminology and emotion directed towards “dam’ libruls.”)? What are the unmet needs of lefties (progs and libs) who want more civility?
I grew up with the right wing, especially the Xtian Right (there were planning sessions by statewide “Evangelical” action groups in my family living room many nights every week). They want two things: to win and to dominate. Their way is afterall the ONLY way, it’s “god breathed.” Period. The lefties have needs based in real life stuff backed up by evidence. Quite a different animal. Plus the desired result is different: lefties tend to want inclusion, cooperation, substantive equality, direct-democracy, progress (actualization of human potential). People on the Right want Jesus reigning from a throne in Jerusalem and vindication and liberation from the oppression of “the World” (liberals and the devil). [Their words, not mine.]
The reasons everyday people on the Right that I personally know are angry with the Government are very different than the reasons I and other folks like me (Lefty progressives) that I know personally. Frankly I do not understand why people choose to believe what they do when there is just no evidence to support that belief. I’m at a loss. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. It’s pretty tough for me to be civil in the face of something that makes no sense when that something that doesn’t make sense exacts a personal adverse toll from me, my family, or my community.
The “evidence” so often given to me to justify Right-wing sympathies or beliefs from people I know are often horrifying to me and deeply offensive to my sense of common civility and decency. People don’t want to pay taxes, they want to be able to do whatever the heck they want and suffer zero consequences for that or have any responsibility or accountability for that “liberty.” People find it entertaining to “screw over” the “other guy” whenever they can, and boast openly about it when they do. People want the “races”, or diverse ethnicities , not to mix (even though they have “mixed” marriages in their very own families). People want order; defined as ‘you only get one chief, not everyone can be the boss. and, the boss is the boss, the worker is the worker, “and the homeless ain’t people anyway. Jess damned lazy is all.” People want “‘Merca for ‘Merkins and other countries for their people, “ever’one in their place.” People want “gays” and “fem’niss” and other “diff’ernts” to “shut up and settle down” about their “special rights.” These are pretty crazy things in my opinion, and all of them offend my sense of humanity and ethics to varying depths of disgust and revulsion. From a species standpoint, that’s all extinction behavior. Since these views end up harming people, it’s pretty tough for me to remain civil. When ya corner a bear….
The only area I “get”, sorta, is the gun thing. People want security and having a firearm on hand gives them a sense of it. Now, my experience growing up where every vehicle had a shotgun and a hunting rifle hanging in a window rack and target shooting and hunting were pretty much the equivalent of suburban soccer practices, a firearm wasn’t what made you feel secure, it made you wary. It was the practiced, skilled ability to talk to a guy and/or disarm him if he didn’t wanna talk that made you feel safe. The local wisdom went, “guns is fer huntin’, fists is fer fightin’…” Based on conversations I’ve had with neighbors who have or want guns, and deeply fear the Feds are coming to take ‘em from them at any moment now, most believe a semi-automatic assault rifle or tactical handgun will make them secure (or at least feel secure). They do NOT understand the very real and ever present social responsibility involved in possessing such hardware, and they do NOT understand the genuine commitment it takes to actually kill another human being with one if and when they believe they must (ask a soldier who has, they’ll give you an earful about it, if they’ve been able to work through the psychic damage it took on them). Non-rural gun ownership affords a false sense of security because the reality is, per the actual data, they’re more likely to get themselves wounded or killed with their own weapon, or be subjected to offensive firepower if they even make such a thing visible in a defensive situation. Again, belief and emotion over real facts. That part I don’t get. I still believe the local wisdom is right and the tea party lust for their version of the fourth amendment right to own firepower and tote it around is more often just plain irrational. But I have never been able to convince people otherwise.
I know there’s loonies on the Left, but they are fundamentally different in nature and behavior than the loonies on the Right. Those differences matter. We don’t need to own their hoohah, just ours, and NOT think somehow (perhaps based on the urge to be civil in the first place) our hoohah is the same as theirs.
I should have kept it shorter. I’m still working on brevity… *shakes head*
Excellent points Jack. That is what we are up against. It’s hard to know how to counter the Right, when we simply cannot do the same as they do. We are just not like that, as you note. Let’s just hope some of them are not like that either, deep down inside.
Jack, the limbic brain is still more powerful than the frontal lobes. Maybe another million years of evolution will do the trick. And besides, it’s easier to be stupid.
Jack – I LOVE your comment: “I know there’s loonies on the Left, but they are fundamentally different in nature and behavior than the loonies on the Right. Those differences matter. We don’t need to own their hoohah, just ours, and NOT think somehow (perhaps based on the urge to be civil in the first place) our hoohah is the same as theirs.” Your idea resonates with me, and I’d love to read more about how you find the Left-leaning loonies different from the Right-leaning ones.