The death of civil discourse? [when Dems crash and burn, conservatives are told to be civil)

On Aug. 27, I appeared on the Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor" to discuss President Obama's legacy. Another guest, conservative author Jane Hammond Cook, began by claiming that Obama would be ranked among the bottom 15 or 20 of presidents.

In response, I made the following points: You cannot judge a president's legacy during his term because evaluations change drastically over time. Harry Truman's approval ratings sank to 22 percent during his last year in office — about half of Obama's current ratings. Truman was reviled in his time, but scholars toady generally regard him as a near-great president.

I did not attempt prematurely to rank Obama overall, but noted that whether you agree with his policies or not, he already is the most consequential Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson. In the limited time available, I cited two examples. First, Obama's efforts to preserve the auto industry and the financial system and his nearly $1 trillion stimulus program likely kept the terrible economy he inherited from an even more disastrous meltdown. I cited studies in support of this view.

Second, with the Affordable Health Care Act, Obama achieved a goal that had eluded numerous presidents of both parties for more than 60 years. Over time, I said it was likely that the act would achieve the goals of insuring many additional millions of Americans and slowing down rising healthcare costs despite every effort by Obama's political opposition to destroy the act. The Affordable Care Act, I noted, was the only major social legislation in the history of the country enacted without a single vote from the opposition party.

These are hardly extreme or radical views. They are of course eminently debatable points and debate them we did, quite civilly on the "Factor." Then came the deluge of emails, phone calls and tweets. The vast majority of these missives were hateful, poisonous, and personal. You would think I had just called for the violent overthrow of our civilization.

Here are just a few examples of the personal attacks my O’Reilly appearance elicited; comments that denied my right even to have an opinion. One university official recommended that I contact our public safety unit, but as you can see the comments are more pathetic and laughable than threatening. Prepare to enter the theater of the absurd:

Allan Lichtman: perfect example of communist on tv, come on, no more commies, they should get no press.

You are just another Obama sucker. Your degrees mean nothing, you can get them at MC Donald with a kiddy bag. So sad that tax dollars are wasted on you.

As pathetic as these personal attacks may be, they still go a long way to explaining why our politics today is polarized and dysfunctional. In fact, no civilization can thrive without civil discourse that recognizes the legitimacy of our diverse points of view.

I can only hope that my revelation of these venomous, if ridiculous, personal attacks will lead to more respectful, constructive dialogue among those with differing ideas. Spirited debate is essential to a healthy democracy, but as Gerald Ford said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."

To this end, we would do well to consider guidelines for civil discourse proposed by Charles Camosy, an assistant professor of Christian ethics at Fordham University, which I paraphrase as follows.

Humility: We all are flawed and make mistakes and should be open to someone challenging our point of view. Listening and respecting: We should give others the courtesy of actually responding to their ideas and arguments rather than destroying them personally. We may have something to learn from a contrary viewpoint. Avoiding binary thinking: The issues of our time are too important and complex to put into simplistic "us versus them" antagonisms. Avoiding dismissive words and phrases: It might feel good to score these rhetorical points, but that is how dialogue becomes polarized and destructive. Hatefulness only divides us and never brings us together. Leading with what you are for: We can forcefully say what we believe without belittling others. We might even find some ground on which we can agree.

The comments on this column will give some indication of whether we continue the post-O’Reilly diatribes or follow Camosy's path to civil discourse. Let's hear from you.

Lichtman is distinguished professor of history at American University in Washington.

THREE STUNNING DEMOCRAT SCANDALS just surfacing!

Issa: Justice Dept. staffer made a bad call "Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications director is being accused of calling the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Republican staff and asking for help spinning a story. The twist? The GOP staff alleges that Holder’s spokesman thought he was talking to the Democrats.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) sent a letter to Holder on Monday about the incident, saying he was “extremely troubled” that the Justice Department may have been trying to coordinate with the minority staff on the release of documents to the committee regarding the Internal Revenue Service targeting certain political groups.

Issa’s letter claims that Brian Fallon asked for a specific committee aide and then told that person that he wanted to get materials to “interested reporters” before sending them to the majority, so that the agency could spin the story first....

Wife's weeping over anti-union law drove Dem DA to target Wis gov, staff & conservatives for 5 yrs "A Democratic district attorney who has pursued Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker over alleged campaign finance violations told a fellow prosecutor that his crying wife, a union official, drove him to hunt the governor and his conservative allies because of his anti-union laws feared by organized labor.

The explosive revelation came Tuesday as lawyers for Milwaukee DA John Chisholm began two days of oral arguments in a Chicago courtroom over earlier rulings that effectively ended his wide-ranging investigation.

The investigation aimed to show that conservative groups were illegally working hand-in-hand with Walker's office when they ran 'issue ads' pressing the case that public employee unions should face reforms. Such arrangements, attorneys say, are common on both sides of the political aisle – including President Barack Obama's longstanding coordination with Priorities USA Action and other 'super PACs.'

Leaders of virtually every conservative political nonprofit in the Badger State, 29 in all, have found themselves swept up in Chisholm's criminal probe as they were hit with pre-dawn raids that seized their computers, cell phones, email records – and even a child's iPad.

Armed police kept many of them from contacting their lawyers or corralling their children in some cases while they executed searches initiated by Chisholm over a period of a year and a half.

Republicans have accused Chisholm of using heavy-handed tactics, furthered by police using floodlights to illuminate suburban homes as flashing squad cars jammed driveways and cul-de-sacs."..............

IRS chief’s legal adviser spread word of missing e-mails to Treasury lawyer "Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen testified this summer that he played no part in spreading word of the agency’s controversial missing e-mails to the Treasury Department or the White House. But one of his closest advisers apparently did.....

Republican lawmakers have suggested that the IRS collaborated with the Treasury Department and the executive’s office to control damage from the IRS targeting scandal. The White House learned about the missing e-mails in April, two months before the IRS informed the congressional committees that had requested the records for investigations..........."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.