Posted on 09/17/2009 6:03:08 AM PDT by Tolik
It was certainly uncouth of Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) to scream, “You lie!” at his commander-in-chief in the middle of Barack Obama’s recent health-care speech before a joint session of Congress.
And others who keep insisting that the president doesn’t have an authentic U.S. birth certificate clearly come off as unhinged — much like just-resigned White House green-jobs czar Van Jones does for having signed his name to a petition stating that the Bush administration may have allowed the 9/11 murders of 3,000 people to happen.
During his speech the other night, the president calmly called for a new civility — although he had just accused his opponents of dissimulation in their attack on his health-care plan, while himself presenting many dubious suppositions as fact.
Over the last three decades, we saw vicious attacks on Ronald Reagan and on Bill Clinton, and their tough replies in turn. But recently the vicious rhetoric has escalated far beyond anything in the past. The smears seem reminiscent more of the brawling on the eve of the Civil War, or the nastiness during the 1960s that took decades to heal.
No one knows what the rules of engagement are now. Republicans have not forgotten that Democratic legislators loudly booed Bush during his 2005 State of the Union. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic party, not long ago boasted, “I hate Republicans!” Around the same time, The New Republic magazine published an article entitled “Why I Hate George W. Bush.”
Major politicians such as former vice president Al Gore, Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), and former senator John Glenn (D., Ohio), have compared George W. Bush or his supporters to Nazis or the brown shirts. A major publishing house released a novel about killing President Bush; a movie won a prize at the Toronto Film Festival with the same theme. Bush Derangement Syndrome was no joke.
What exactly has gone wrong?
A number of things. For years, liberals were out of power. They became increasingly shrill in their frustration at George W. Bush — who seemed to set them off like no other Republican in memory.
Now that Democrats control both the Congress and the presidency, they are once more the establishment. Yet suddenly they have become angered that some conservatives, in tit-for-tat fashion, would dare resort to some of the crassness that was used to defame Bush — when any means were felt necessary to achieve the noble ends of opposing his policies.
Commentary, of course, has changed. The need for constant controversy on 24/7 cable television, nonstop blogging, and ratings-driven talk radio ensure first thoughts are aired — before more sober second ones can rein in the emotion. News is entertainment. Anger sells. Slurs, not reflection, win ratings.
Many political hit men and talking heads are also baby boomers. They cut their teeth on coarse, anything-goes Vietnam War protests. These aging children of protest still haven’t quite figured out that they are now supposed to be sober seniors teaching younger generations the vital rules of decorum. Instead, our teachers themselves still need to be taught manners.
Another cause of the new rudeness is that the country is fragmenting. Almost every issue is dissected by its effect not on the American people as a whole, but rather on a particular constituency defined by race, class, or gender. The louder and more melodramatic the accusation, the more attention and federal money follow.
Yet, just as even the gory gladiators at Rome, in their blood-soaked arena, followed a few rules, perhaps we can at least do the same:
Don’t call anyone a Nazi or brown shirt. Avoid shouting down a public official. Remember that there usually aren’t clear good and bad political choices, just bad and worse ones. Don’t get outraged at a slur against your team if you once made the same sort of one against the opposition.
And, most of all, remember that while we’re shouting at each other, the country is at war and piling up debt at the rate of $2 trillion a year — while plenty of rivals and enemies abroad are smiling as never before.
That is certainly true. The last non-State-Of-The-Union joint session address was President Bush, on 9/20/2001, right after the 9/11 attacks.
That was called so he could present the nation’s plans for responding to the attack, and was completely non-political, contained no attacks on any member of congress, nor any comments on what any of them had said.
Frankly, Congress used to look very dimly as an institution on the idea of the President telling them what to do publicly like that. If Bush had asked for a joint session to discuss the TARP last fall, the Democrats would have said no, just have us come to a meeting in your office.
The last time I saw a joint session used as a political ploy, it was in a hollywood movie, “the contender”, where the President used trickery and deceit to force a direct up-and-down vote during his joint session for his pick to replace the vice president.
In fact, movies like to use joint sessions of congress. Dave used one for Dave (playing the role of a coma-president because he looked like the president) to resign his office and provide evidence of criminal activity for congress, and “The American President”, where Michael Douglass made a joint session speech to push legislation and to attack his presidential candidate opponent — but I think that was actually a State of the Union speech.
I agree. We don't need this kind of hyperbole, the truth is BAD ENOUGH.
This is not an intellectual debate. Lefties for the most part aren't interested in a debate, never have been. You don't welcome a debate when you can't be honest about your intentions. We're witnessing political theater.
This is war...and I refuse to fight like the British, lining up in perfect formation to be slaughtered.
Anyone who thinks this is anything less...read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
You can't look at what's going on daily in the same way ever again.
This is war. Stop trying to pretend it's anything else.
And if it is war...I'm not trying to argue with his logic. I'm questioning his premise.
The problem is worse than just the birther nonsense. Check out this post I made earlier, when I posted an article basically calling for conservatives to stop the theatrics, the yelling obscenities at Congressmen, and so forth. The response has been a resounding vote for idiocy and irrelevancy. I am frankly both shocked and ashamed that so many supposedly "conservative" FReepers would be so incensed that somebody would ask them to rely on reason and argument instead of the rhetorical equivalent of leaving a burning bag of dog poo on their Congressman's doorstep.
Some people equate a principled, rigorous, tough, unyielding but civil without screaming and exaggerations debate with being weak and appeasing.
They forget that the target is not a leftist activist who we have a zero chance to convert (only lifetime experience made some formal liberals into conservatives). We fight for uncommitted, or conservative democrats, or wavering republicans, all that amorphous group I can best describe as Reagan democrats. He made a conservative idea attractive to them. Unfortunately, you can never win forever. The fight for conservatism needs to be repeated again and again. But throwing poop - while it can give us a temporarily satisfaction - is not going to win us the fight for mushy middle.
Totally agree.
Just look at some of the responses in the thread about VDH’s reference to Obama as Wilson’s Commander-in-chief. Because of that “egregious error”, several wrote things like “I’ll never read VDH again”, etc.
Yes. Sad, isn’t it? Has conservatism reached that point?
If the only thing we can do is adopt Saul Alinsky’s tactics, then we’ve already lost.
I think a lot of people have become so focused on the fringe blogosphere on both sides of the spectrum that they forget that the vast majority of Americans are neither convinced nor impressed by raving, sloganeering, or making wild claims. That sort of behavior discredits, rather than supports, one’s argument in the minds of most reasonable people.
Joe Wilson is a retired National Guard Colonel. It’s not inconceivable that he could be recalled to active duty.
I respectfully disagree. Throwing poop did colour the perceptions of many American about G W Bush. It was effective as negative ads are effective at election times. I agree that the ardent, life-long socialist won't be won over (his party is more like a secular religion to him) and I agree we should try to be as fair and reasonable as possible with other people who share share those same values, however, those tactics don't always guarantee success in belligerent times. We should have the unmitigated gal to fight using mud — people will respect conservatives not just for their values of decency but for going to those harsh ends to win back a country. If they lose there will be no country and no more decency left. Mud won't kill people but it sure can be an effective tool.
We can't make the assumption that most Americans are rational after being brain washed by MSM for their whole lives. Emotional appeal is important too. If anything appeals to them is a leader who is not afraid to get into the mud to wrestle his opponent. McCain didn't do it and look where it got him.
You are a leftist in spirit. You may mouth conservative platitudes, but there is no difference between someone like you, and Rahm Emanuel.
Reagan would be ashamed of you.
Perhaps not...I wasn't suggesting using all of Alinsky's tactics, I was suggesting familiarity with them, so we can understand what the left is doing. Maybe there are some we should use. Ridicule, for example. I'd be interested in discussing it more; thank you for your civil disagreement.
You are a leftist in spirit. You may mouth conservative platitudes, but there is no difference between someone like you, and Rahm Emanuel.
Reagan would be ashamed of you.
How...pure. How...noble.
How F$%#@&* lame.
I don't know whether you're a fool or a troll. I suppose it doesn't matter, except that a well meaning fool is more dangerous.
There was nothing in my post to trigger this verbal diarrhea. Do you want to explain your problem or should I assume you're an unskilled political theorist with a flat-world frame of reference and poor social skills?
I don't know whether you're a fool or a troll. I suppose it doesn't matter, except that a well meaning fool is more dangerous.
There was nothing in my post to trigger this verbal diarrhea. Do you want to explain your problem or should I assume you're an unskilled political theorist with a flat-world frame of reference and poor social skills?
Great. Another one of these people who can't back up what they say and can't take criticism of what they write in a public forum.
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.