Encouraging Civility in Political Debates
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-18/encouraging-civility-political-debates
President Barack Obama takes part in a conference call in the Situation Room of the White House concerning the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Az., Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. Pictured, left to right, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, incoming Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer, and Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro. Also taking part in the call were Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza via Flickr
The nation paused last week to remember the victims of a shooting spree in Arizona. At a memorial in Tuscon, President Obama urged all Americans to use the tragedy as a reason to expand our moral imagination …to talk to each other in a way that heals rather than wounds. Police portrayed the alleged shooter as mentally unstable with no political ties. But the attempted assassination of a member of Congress brought attention to the rise of partisan rancor in recent years. Many lawmakers are now calling for a more civil tone in our political debates. We invite you to share your ideas on how to encourage civility in our communities.
Guests
James Fallows
national correspondent for the "Atlantic Monthly."
Jill Lepore
professor of American History and chair of the History and Literature Program at Harvard University. She is also a staff writer at The New Yorker and author, most recently, of "The Whites of Their Eyes."
Glenn Nye
former representative of the Second District of Virginia in the U.S. House.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
With huge amount of misinformation out there that passes for “news”, where facts often seem to matter little, meaningful debate is difficult at best. Any point of view, no matter how radical, can be encouraged if one cherry picks one’s sources. In the land of sound bites, very little thinking seems to occur, except perhaps that which seems to support greed and/or self-interest.
In spirit of compromise, Obama has been settling for middle ground lately- I’m not sure middle ground is always best.
If GOP had there way, most experts agree that at least hundreds of thousands of auto-related jobs would have been lost. That’s a fact. I’m thankful Obama didn’t compromise.
Majority of economists agree that recent progressive policies staved off a 2nd Great Depression. I personally am kinda glad that didn’t happen, No?
Bush went to war against terrorists in Iraq at a time when there were none. And since all the prewar ‘intelligence’ of “mobile chemical weapons factories, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and WMD’s” turned out to be either false or falsified; the only reason for Iraq War left to date (which by some estimates will cost the country over 3 trillion dollars as well as thousands of American and 100’s of thousands of Iraqi lives) has been “Oops!”.
There is absolutely no historical precedent that shows that tax breaks for wealthy ever has effected job creation or deficit positively.
There are right answers to the major issues that confront us. Anyone with any courage can look with 20/20 hindsight to see what policies worked in the past, and use this to guide forward. (for example -Want jobs? want deficit reduction? Look at the policies in place in “better” times- don’t reinvent the wheel).
Yes there should be intelligent civil debate on these issues informed by facts (& not just by congressman essentially talking to themselves in an “empty” house or Senate chamber); but afterwards intelligent choices need be made.
Drew Kelly:
What is to say that those tax payer supported jobs for auto workers will still not be lost? What happens if our fragile economy collapses due to high energy prices. I hope you will not ask the taxpayer to pick up the bill to keep these auto workers employed. We owe 14 trillion already.
Personally I am glad that Saddam out of power. He was a thorn on our side. He financed terrorism. He already produced and used poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds in the north.
As far as costing many Iraqi death, I have heard that Saddam killed in excess of over 300,000 of his own people. Remember the minority in Iraq was Sunni of which Saddam was one. Shi'ite vs Sunni have always been enemies killing each other. Hopefully once things return to normal, US companies can get business and be taxed to recover three trillion dollars.
As far as tax cuts creating job, you sure have not seen during Reagan times that tax cuts created 5 million jobs. If you need a thread ask me.
OK, let me admit 1st that I used to be more liberal, and am now more conservative. But I currently listen to both right and left wing shows. When the left demonizes the right as "polarizing and inciting violence" they are very short on specific examples or actual proof. Their accusations are VAGUE.
On the other hand, I've recently heard a right wing show specifically give several instances -- in the leftists' OWN WORDS! -- of incredibly nasty accusations and actual calls to kill certain right wing personalities. It's very revealing that the mainstream, leftist media shows never expose that. You have to learn about it on Fox, mainly.
It seems to me that the left is very shocked and threatened that the conservatives are finally standing up for their beliefs and refuse to be remain silent.
Essentially, we have a divide between opposing philosophies: By and large, one either thinks that government is the solution, or that it is the problem! And it depends on whether one is a producer or a taker in society - by and large.
Please ask your guests how we as a culture can discuss civility when a good portion of our leadership is lobbying to carry firearms in the District of Columbia? Washington has strict rules (some of the strictest in the nation) and once again, congress wants an exception that makes them above the law. It makes no sense
If civility is even possible in an atmosphere that has already been poisoned, at the very least it will require that we the public take back the public airways by reinstating the Fairness doctine. Allowing people to use them to spread misinformation is how we got to this point.
Thank you for your show.
When I attended the "Rally to Restore Sanity" in October, I carried a sign that read "Civility IS Patriotic".
I believe that people are ready to embrace a tone of civility.
My experience in October gave me hope.
Be well
If Diane looks at WTC #7 and has a program about 9/11 Truth movement and find out what the issue is from Architect Richard Gage, perhaps we will be a very feely-touchy society, looking inward and tolerating self-examining debate.
But it requires political courage and intellectual will, Diane. If This Show does not have these basic requirements, that it becomes part of the problem.
Please Diane, click on one of the links below and find out what the deal is about WTC #7
http://www.WTC7.net
http://www.AE911Truth.org
Are we afraid of information or facts?
Please discuss the lack of civility in comment sections of web sites and blogs. I believe regular citizens have a huge responsibility in this.
One step toward civil discourse is to stop misrepresenting people with whom you disagree, and begin acknowledging inappropriate behavior by those with whom you agree. Admitting that the right thinks government is "the problem" -- not just a problem, but THE problem -- acknowledges one motivation for violent speech and action:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insu...
Read that entire disturbing list, then try to match any tenth of it with equivalent focus from the left. Please provide actual data: dates, names, quotes.
I've discovered attempts at several far right sites, and I'm sorry to say they're laughable. It's not enough to give two examples of linguistic metaphors from the left and say, "See, they're the same!" It's not sufficient to cite five minor incidents driven by left-leaning rhetoric over the past fifteen years and pretend the case is won.
To defend your position, it will be necessary to match at least 100+ cases of hateful rhetoric, violent results, and actual cluster murders in the past two years, all of which -- as outlined in the link -- the right has provided with increasing vitriol, following primarily the form of Palin and the Tea Party.
I'm not saying there's something inherently violent about the right. Most people on the right are not violent. And yet, they permit those who lead the party they follow to behave that way.
It could be convincing to cite public calls for government overthrow and destruction, military coups and sedition, hangings and lynchings, political assassination -- and multiple actual cluster murders -- by left-wing US extremists in the past two years. However, once we accept that such evidence does not exist at anywhere near that scale, it will be easier to grasp the reality in which society is now steeped.
I think the "In your face" confrontational tv shows (Jerry Springer et al) add to our acceptance of ugly/vitriolic dialogs. the public has become desensitized. Not only are the politicians responsible for a level of civility, but we as a culture are as well.
Why does the right, and why do members of this discussion, appear to be absolutely incapable of recognizing the environment of hate speech was initially fostered by Rush Limbaugh in the early 90's, when he discovered a money making formula (thanks to the repeal of the fairness doctrine) of hate speech (demonizing liberals and Democrats) aimed at the Left. For years his was the sole voice, a voice from the RIGHT attacking the LEFT. Any conversation with a right winger must first begin with their acknowledgement of this FACT or the discussion is a farce. Now the left has reacted - the left didn't start it. The right did. They need to take personal responsibility for it or nothing will change.
I think it would go a long way to being civil if we cut out the inciteful language such as:
Obamacare
Death Panels
Partial Birth Abortion
these are all contrived to incite emotion and are NOT even based in fact. Yes, I am a Democrat, but it seems there are lots of these infammatory terms used by the other side.
Stacy
Plantation, Florida
I would venture to say that if you took a poll most people would say they are offended and disgusted by the political discourse. Why then do the worst of the pundits have such a large audience? I don't understand. Without listeners they would be off the air.
Diane,
Just switched on your show and could not believe you referred to your interview with the TX congressman last wk which I am still fuming over. You asked him (5 times!) how his behavior would change after the events in AZ. For him to answer your question would have granted that uncivil discourse was the cause of the shooting! He was certainly not inclined to grant that cause at that point. Many people of good conscience disagree with the opinion that the tone of a debate has any effect on those who are determined to act out their craziness. Call this what it is...an attempt to stifle opposite viewpoints from conservatives. You may not like how they say it sometimes...I don't either. But the arguments themselves are important to our democracy.
Additionally, Letters to the Editor often have been printed that reflect the vitriol we are discussing today. The editors of those sections need to be responsible. The letters that are often printed in various newspapers are inflammatory and degrading to "the other side" and to humanity in general.
Once again in today's show we see the media declining to reflect upon it's central role in heated political speech.
Why do politicians use heated rhetoric? Because that's how you get your sound bite covered by the media.
Dear Diane and other media, if you have sincere concern about heated political rhetoric, here's a simple solution fully within your own control.
Stop boosting your ad revenue profits by covering extremists and their heated political rhetoric.
This is unlikely to happen, because 1) the media business model is dependent upon a strong bias for drama, and 2) the media is not willing to cover that story in any depth.
Meangreen,
I hope we can disagree civilly.
I find it difficult to understand, judging by the results, how anyone can fault the Auto bailout.
Not a big fan of Sadaam, but I’m less a fan of “wars of choice”- there have always been less than great leaders around the world- I question whether it is our place to take it upon ourselves to occupy their countries. Also question our motives for going, considering the hyped prewar “intelligence” and our complete lack of a post-invasion strategy.
Any facts available anywhere to support claim that Saddam financed terrorism?
I’m glad about your optimism that things will “return to normal” in Iraq and businesses and taxes created will return us that 3 trillion cost- that‘ll help deficit and budget a lot.
Be happy to look at your thread concerning Reagan> This is my current understanding:
Supply side economics rests on repeatedly disproved faith that investment and prosperity are caused by giving ever more of nation's wealth to the wealthy.
Reagan cut marginal tax rate on wealthiest Americans from 70% to 38%, proclaiming this would rocket economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, it did opposite, producing at the time, the deepest recession since Great Depression.
As far as jobs, in each of Clinton years, on average 2.5 times more jobs were created than each of Reagan, Bush SR, or W. This is a fact.
Clinton reversed Reagan's course, raising taxes on wealthy, and lowering them for working and middle classes, producing longest sustained economic expansion in American history. It also produced budgetary surpluses allowing government to begin paying down the debt. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion; the forecast- a ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion.
As always, we love you and your show and the civility you always show your guests and listeners. Thank you.
My husband pointed out shortly after President Obama's election how the blessings in the Catholic mass that we attended had changed. In the list of blessings, the congregation is no longer asked to include the president. We find this strange and offensive. We have been following Ms Tanner since she started publishing from our alma mater, Georgetown, and would be interested in her comments. I am 55,my husband 53 and perhaps our dismay is a generational expectation.
As a Brit living in the US I have one comment to make on civil debate.
America is the perfect society because it has an exact 50/50 split (Democrates to Republicans). In order to sway feelings from one side to the other stronger and stronger verbiage is used. The unfortunate consequence of perfect balance is non-movement. Just take a look at the UK parliamentary question time. It is a political pressure valve allowing heated discussion within the confines of Parliament. In US it's all discussed in the press.
I am listening this morning to your discussion about civility. This issue cannot be addressed on any level lower than a spiritual level. In the writings of the Baha'i Faith, much has been written about the importance of the spiritual nature of consultation, and how consultation must be "frank and loving": "In the clash of different opinions comes the shining spark of truth." The fact that people disagree on an issue is a good one, and that is only natural. What is important is respecting another's point of view, and engaging in a process where creating unity of thought and action is considered a higher goal than being attached to your own opinion. Bahai's believe that this is the only possible process that will lead to cooperation and peace.
Why would we slow down a debate on gun control as one of your guests suggests? We passed the Patriot Act very quickly without much debate after 911. Why don't we create a bill to control guns, call it Save My 9 Year Old Daughter, and move forward as a country? Oh, that's right, because corporate interests do not want this to happen.
When Republicans all parrot the Frank Luntz focus group phrases for any particular issue they are not seeking civility or frank discussion but seeking to hit people at an emotional level that by-passes thoughtful dialog.
Think "death panel" "job killer"....
When voters vote out of anger it only fuels more inflammatory language and those running office feed that in order to be elected. We as voters should study, read and listen and vote for the best not who can inflame.
As a Secondary Education major emphasizing in social studies (after 3 years as a political science major), I think civility in debating is a skill that needs to be taught in today's society. We don't allow teachers to mention "hot topics" in the classroom because we fear indoctrination, but then we are surprised by the ignorant rhetoric that pours from their mouths later in life. I believe educating people on how to discuss to constructively discuss and debate the difficult social and political topics in society, we will see a major change in how adults handle conflicting ideals/debates later in life.
I have recently read that the Fairness Act had been repealed in 1987. This Act had required news broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues. Why was this Act repealed, and wouldn't it help if we reinstituted something along those lines? The American public seems to choose the news it wants to hear, rather than necessarily seeking to learn how all sides view an issue or even necessarily demanding to hear the facts around an issue. This certainly cannot help us in our discord, whether it is public or private. So perhaps we need something like the Fairness Act...
I agree that such horrible events as the AZ shootings yet again bring us all an opportunity for we the public and our government to problem solve the circumstances that permit such horrendous behavior.
I am a couple therapist who has for years worked to help couples express their values, opinions and differences with those they love most. I am also a Virginia Tech parent who, along with my daughter and many of her friends, survived and still handle the grief of the worst ever gun violence death of innocent people in our country. Just like in AZ it was at the hands of a mentally ill person with weapons that too quickly exact violence and not solve problems.
I hope we will carry this civil discourse, about the use of extreme measures (like guns or even violent speech) to exercise power in making decisions, into the state and federal legislatures. Perhaps there we will make rulings to keep violent means out of the hands of those who do not speak with civility. We will address the 3 issues here: 1) Managing our mental illness, 2) managing weapons of quick and final outcome and 3) insisting upon civil discourse especially during conflict. After all we have developed a fairly successful system with cars.
Yes, Yes, Yes civiilty must be improved in political debates.
Just as you pointed out that many are yelling at their radios about gun control and mental health policies, I am yelling at my radio on a different, related topic.
As President Obama said in his speech, political debate need to improve along the lines of "a more civil and honest public discourse ..." where my issue is the lack of honesty in political discourse.
The notion of putting ones position in the best possible light - aka 'spiniing' - has spun out of control into fabrication rather than illumination.
I would like television news have a segment in the spirit of factcheck.org, getting to the facts, but times 1000.
As Patrick Moynihan said famously, "You have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts".. Why isn't debunking false statements great content for TV News?
...and I hear James Fallows stating my point as I type.
Chris
The "lack of civility" in political discourse creates a personal attack on politicians and public figures that, most importantly of all, obscures the issues. I live in Charlottesville, Virginia where citizens converged on the office of my former Congressman Tom Perriello and hung him in effigy. They were protesting Perriello's support of the Health Care Bill. In addition to the shocking violence of their expression, the conversation now moved away from the specifics of the Health Care Bill and into a personal attack on our representative's very life. People who take their time to create a paper-mache likeness of Tom Perriello and put a rope around its neck are not using that time to learn about and then debate the ISSUE. Let's talk about Health Care, not express our hatred of individuals.
With over 15 years working in the nonprofit sector, I would like to establish a Civility Institute, one that addresses political and public discourse, as well as reaching into the private sector (beginning with school-age children) to teach and raise awareness around civility--what it means and why its important
Anyone who can give me leads on whom I could engage in this conversation, please respond here to my comment. I'm aware of Forni's work at Hopkins (where I work) and will contact him to begin the dialogue.
Many thanks.
Why are we surprised with the lack of civility in politics. Just look around, there is a scarcity of civility all around us. TV shows for instance, and not just the "news" shows, but even the entertainment media display an inordinate amount of bad behavior by main characters who succeed only at the expense of others. To build up ourselves or our position, we must belittle and/or tear down others. TV is not the cause, but a reflection of our society's values.