Posted on 01/08/2012 3:19:02 PM PST by Drango
January 8, 2012
When a gunman opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and others at a shopping center near Tucson exactly a year ago — killing six people and injuring Giffords and many others — some people were quick to blame the episode on the overheated political climate.
At the time of the attack, there was a high tide of political rhetoric across America and a low ebb of social civility. The New York Times reported that the shootings "raised questions about potential political motives" and that the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff was blaming the tragedies on "the toxic political environment."
According to The Times, national reaction was immediate. "Democrats denounced the fierce partisan atmosphere in Gifford's district and top Republicans quickly condemned the violence."
President Obama made a fervent appeal for "more civil and honest public discourse."
As the nation has watched Giffords' heroic struggle to recover, it has also continued to publicly debate the importance of manners in public debate. Now the country is in the middle of a high-intensity presidential election. Politicians are slinging sludge and slamming their opponents — even within their own party. The moratorium on verbal mayhem is a distant mist and campaigning has again become a running series of $#*! Candidates Say About Each Other.
So on the first anniversary of the Tucson massacre, it's only natural to ask the obvious question: Whatever happened to political civility?
Grappling With Civility
Revved-up political rhetoric is always with us, says Cassandra Dahnke, co-founder of the Institute for Civility in Government, a nonpartisan Houston-based group that stages civility workshops and leads student field trips to Washington. "I don't think it becomes any worse during an election year. There is simply more of it. It becomes more difficult to avoid. But the nature of heated rhetoric otherwise remains, I believe, much the same."
Dahnke says she is "grateful that the country continues to grapple with civility and its relative importance to life in the public square."
But spoor of incivility is easy to find on the campaign trail. The stampeding candidates often poke and gore one another with sharp-horned barbs. For example, Jon Huntsman has told voters that Ron Paul is "not electable." Ron Paul has called Newt Gingrich a "chicken hawk" — in Sunday's New Hampshire debate and before — who avoided military service but sends others to fight wars. Gingrich has said that all Mitt Romney wants to do is "hide over here and pretend it's not his fault that he is flooding the people of Iowa with falsehoods." Romney has quipped that Rick Perry's approach to Social Security is not a "Ponzi scheme," it's a "Perry scheme." Attacks by Democrats can be just as crass.
Rudeness often dominates Internet comment sections and radio talk shows and TV town halls, leading to uncivil wars of words.
In Dahnke's opinion, "a lack of civility drives people from the conversation, and cripples the collaborative processes needed for a healthy democracy to endure. Without civility, we may be speaking at one another, but we are not necessarily speaking with one another, and if we cannot speak with one another, we can scarcely accomplish much else."
A Brittle Citizenry?
Over the years, everyone from Karl Rove on the right to Norman Lear on the left has called for a more mannerly body politic.
"American political discourse seems to be on a path to paralysis," Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the University of Massachusetts-Boston said in a statement recently. He was speaking about his school's newly created Center for Civil Discourse. "Extremist rhetoric permeates every level of political debate — from Congress to traditional media to the Internet.
Crosby said his center's goal "is to explore the meaning of civility and its role in American democracy and to encourage its practice."
This being America, however, not everyone shares that sentiment.
Writing in the Libertarian magazine Reason, David Harsanyi once asked, "Have we transformed into so brittle a citizenry that we are unable to handle a raucous debate over the future of the country? If things were quiet, subdued and 'civil' in America today ... it only would be proof that democracy isn't working."
And the late Christopher Hitchens reportedly said that civility is overrated.
"Some find in civility merit," Dahnke says, "others find weakness and/or political correctness."
Being civil, she says, "does not preclude one from being passionate, forceful or tough. It does preclude one from being rude, callous or mean."
Her institute defines civility as "claiming and caring for one's identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else's in the process." Dahnke says, "We aren't expecting people to always agree, nor would we want them to be anything less than passionate about their positions. But a person should not have to resort to rudeness, hostility and/or falsehood to make a reasoned point."
But isn't rough-and tumble language the price we pay for free speech? "Yes," Dahnke says. "But as Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court is credited with saying, 'There is a big difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do.' "
This is a classical whisper campaign to discredit the right. (Payed for with your tax dollars)
see also ms google for...
judge roll, giffords, madsen, etc.
Blood Libel!
Giffords is the only victim who counts, apparently, since the others don’t even get their names mentioned. Maybe it’s inconvenient to the Left to note how many of the murdered were themselves Republican or conservative in orientation, and that the killer was more of an anarcho-socialist Satan worshipper than anything else. That doesn’t fit their script. The Right MUST be to blame.
Hmmm.
A nutcase whom his friends call a radical leftist pothead goes berserk and shoots a bunch of people, and the left blames on Sarah Palin and the GOP.
I guess we really don’t need any further evidence regarding who is responsible for the breakdown of discourse.
I believe their prophet said something along the lines, “Get out there and get in their faces.”
Careful whose face you get into, libs. Be very, very careful.
That's because there is no such evidence.
However there's plenty of evidence of the leftists not only creating a "toxic political environment" with their acerbic speech, but also committing acts of violence both historically (KKK) and recently.
These leftist ideologues are cut from the same cloth as European Socialists, Soviets, Nazis and Maoists.
Other examples of violent leftists, Black Panthers, Union thugs, skinheads, "anarchists" and environmental terrorists.
Agreed although Fox did mention each of the other victims but I don’t have to hear this 20 times today so I just change it.....
The shooter has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. His actions would seem to have as much to do with partisan politics as the Lizzy Borden ax murders.
“Careful whose face you get into, libs. Be very, very careful.”
That’s a fact.
A Conservative Federal judge was killed, no?
Go to Hell, NPR.
National Pissant Radio.
Civil Discourse is just a ruse to allow the democrats to control opposition speech.
Visit any democrat forum...any forum...lets just see the civil discourse they express. It was always far worse than anything the GOP did or said.
OK, I blame Dems for Occupy, all of the deaths at Occupy, all of the robberies, assaults, and rapes at Occupy, all of the damage done to local businesses due to Occupy, and all of the damage and expense due to Occupy.
Giffords is still alive. Occupy killed people, hurt people, and caused much damage.
You win, Dems!
I left out the judge who was killed.
Still, Occupy worse.
From what I recall the guy was certifiably insane, and had communist leanings if anything. He hated Giffords for voting against some Obama program.
Typifies why I wouldn’t wipe my backside with the New York Times.
This type of journalism was considered the lowest form of journalism during much of the 20th century. Tying opponents to tragedies is “Reichstag Fire” journalism and nothing more than propaganda that has the added stain of intending to foment hate and possibly violence against those holding opposing views. Interestingly, it is not unusual to see it funded by public or state dollars because such hate often thrives knowing it has the support and force of the state behind it. It is a method of crushing dissent and it should be illuminated for what it is.
What does one do in the face of this stuff? How can someone politely correct someone so hateful?
All the more reason to abolish this uncivil NPR and its biased jackassed employees and watch them try to get real jobs, productive jobs for once.
Ms. Giffords was not then nor is now looking out for Arizona...just her 'funding' base.
Didn’t the Obama campaign set up a ‘war room’ in Iowa to ‘attack’ Republican front runner Mitt Romney? I guess toxic is relative.
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.