I was going to write something about wishing to see civility restored to public debate, but I got so confused when I tried to think my argument through that I gave up on it.
I'm not unclear what I mean by "civility." I mean, at a minimum, that people who oppose a particular point of view should stick to attacking the point of view and not the person who holds it. I have certainly been guilty of it myself in the course of blogging, but when I look back at what I've written I end up feeling ashamed. It's possible, it is completely possible, to censure conduct without impugning someone's character and I've written long screeds about the necessity of avoiding judgment, and yet I do it all the time.
My only comfort is in knowing, like Zooey in the Salinger book, "that I'll pay like hell for any judgment I mete out."
It's a surprisingly short jump, I've found, from disliking a particular opinion to hating the person who expresses it and from there to hating everyone you assume holds it.
I don't know what the solution is. Should we on the so-called "Left" allow those on the so-called "Right" to walk all over us? Should we go all John Kerry again and let them swiftboat us into irrelevance?
I don't think that, but I wonder if pugilism really is the best answer to pugilism. Are people persuaded by it? I saw bloggers claiming credit for the Lamont victory in Connecticut, but I guess I am wondering how likely it is that the people who voted for Lamont were really influenced by what they read. Isn't it more likely that the Connecticut Democrats voted for Lamont because they felt that Lieberman wasn't no longer accurately representing them?
After all, the real issue in the political forum ISN'T the character, beliefs, or possible motives of Joe Lieberman for running as an independent, but whether people in Connecticut feel that he will accurately represent their views in the Senate. As a Democrat, I deplore his decision and can get behind any decision of the party to treat him as effectively opposing the party, but he has every right to run against Lamont if he has sufficient support. And the voters of Connecticut from both sides have every right to choose him over Lamont.
How have we so lost sight of how the process is supposed to work? Never mind; I know how: during the last two elections. After all the ideas underlying the process become irrelevant if the process is corrupted or even if it suspected of having been corrupted. You start feeling that nothing you do or say matters, which encourages you to say everything that occurs to you to say.
I don't know what the solution is. The other side shows no signs of giving up on the swiftboating; I don't want my fellow Dems to just roll over.
Comments