is quite possibly not what those here on a partisan (dedicated to electing Democratics, hopefully progressive ones) political blog like Daily Kos want to hear, now or ever. It is however the title of this op ed E.J. Dionne, for which I am quite grateful. Oh, the op ed itself is fine, well worth reading. But my thanks are because it made me aware of a speech I would otherwise have missed. That speech was by Jim Leach, former Republican Congressman from Iowa, now chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bridging Cultures is for me one of the more important speeches I have recently encountered.
Dionne begins his piece like this:
The most surprising and disappointing aspect of our politics is how little pushback there has been against the vile, extremist rhetoric that has characterized such a large part of the anti-Obama movement.
Leach, who has begun a 50-state "civility" tour, provides us with a thorough examination of an issue I think critical to our nation's future.
Clearly Dionne's words about lack of pushback are somewhat gainsayed by what we encouter at this site. One can also point at the efforts of those like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart to argue that the vile rhetoric has been exposed, sometimes with scathing ridicule, by such as these.
Where I agree with Dionne about the lack of pushback is that within the political elite itself we are seeing little. To quote Dionne again,
President Obama's White House has largely ignored those accusing him of "fascism" and "communism," presumably believing that restraint in defense of dignity is no vice.
I also worry that where pushback has occurred it has too often been with an escalation of rhetoric back at those viewed as being offensive. I think any regular reader of Daily Kos can find more than a few examples among the several hundred diaries each day, and will also occasionally find examples among those stories posted on the front page.
Leach frames his address in the context of several things. First, he is well aware of the impact of our two current military conflicts. Second, he is trying to explain how he sees the role of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He begins his remarks with a simple but pointed statement:
As Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities I speak today to underscore the importance of the humanities at a time when the world is in flux and the judgment of its leading democracy is in question.
Stop and at least briefly ponder the final part of that statement, for it is not only that the world is in flux, but that the judgment of its leading democracy is in question.
I think few here would disagree with that. It is not only the actions of the previous administration(s) that people here challenge: we (rightly in many cases) also challenge the thinking and actions of the current administration. Leach would have no problem with that, nor do I. It is not the challenge, it is the rhetoric that concerns us both.
Leach is knowledgeable about history, able to offer examples that can help bring light to the crises we confront. He sees scholarship, such as that supported by NEH, as an important part of that. Let me offer several paragraphs from early in the speech that illustrates this:
In making assumptions about the wisdom and the manner of intervening in the affairs of other countries, would it be helpful for policy-makers to review the history of the French colonial experience in Algeria, the British and Russian experience in Afghanistan, the French and U.S. experience in Vietnam—before rather than after—a decision to go to war?
Would it be useful to study the differences between and within the world’s great religions? And would any aspects of our own colonial history be relevant to decision-making—the asymmetric tactics, for instance, of Francis Marion, the South Carolina patriot known as the Swamp Fox, who attacked the best trained army in the world at night and then vanished into impenetrable swamps during the day?
The NEH advances scholarship in these and other areas. But how does a society translate scholarship into public policy? This is a challenging undertaking because it involves multiple parties—serious scholars on the one hand and an open-minded public and professional policy-makers on the other.
A monk contemplating alone in a cave may be admirable, but wisdom that isn’t shared is noiseless thought in the forest of human kind. Likewise, thoughtful scholarship that is available but not pondered by policy-makers who might have limited interests or ideological biases is a prescription for social error with many costly dimensions.
On the assumption that this is neither a time for scholarly cave-sitting, nor vacuous citizenship, should it not be clear that little is more costly to society than ignoring or short-changing the humanities?
Several things about that passage stand out to me, which is why I offered the extended quotation.
The focus of the speech is, however, less the offering of this kind of analysis than it is of examining the nature of how we disagree. That is perhaps telegraphed by Leach's reference to "policy makers who might have limited interests or ideological biases"and thus do not consider options obtained from the results of scholarship that might contradict those biases. That is why both public and policy-makers need to be "open-minded" and it is, to my mind at least, a major responsibility of our political leadership to demonstrate and reinforce such open-mindedness.
We will inevitably have disagreements. But, as Leach notes,
It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics. Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify—or cloud—thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts.
Leach explores the history of our political disagreements, from the Hamilton-Burr duel through the observations of Walt Whitman. And he rightly notes
Nativism, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic sentiment, and, of course, toleration of human degradation implicit in slavery and indentured servitude "hallmarked" much of American thought and many of our social structures.
One can argue, with what I would agree is a fair amount of accuracy, that such criticisms are still valid for far too much of American society: we might no longer officiall have slavery and indentured servitude but the acquiescence of many in the conditions of workers not only in CNMI but also in sweatshops within the US, the way some undocumented workers are brought in and abused for their labor while denied any access to the legal structures that should protect them, even the conditions under which those working under H1B visas operate touch on matters of slavery and indentured servitude.
To acknowledge such conditions is important. To escalate our rhetoric using these as an excuse is, however, not that much dissimilar from the extreme rhetoric on the other side to which we so rightly object.
Leach offers an extensive analysis of our current political climate, largely through a series of "two-minute" courses, conveniently labeled as Political Science 101-103, and so on on, including as well Philosophy, Psychology, Philosophy, Military Science, Sports, Literature, and Reality 101 and 102. Let me offer several examples:
#
# Psychology 101 relates to the fact that an increasing number of issues in Congress are perceived to be of a moral as contrasted with a judgmental nature. Advocates of one perspective or another assume that an individual on the other side of a moral issue is by implication advocating immorality. On the left, the problem is frequently evidenced by those who assume that increasing social spending for almost any compassionate cause is the only moral choice; and on the right, by those who assume that the moral values of one or another group should be written into law to bind society as a whole.
# Philosophy 101 is the absence of abstraction. Legislation is increasingly driven by partisan concerns rather than consideration for philosophical notions like the public interest or the greatest good of the greatest number. Idealism has given way to a legislative dynamic in which the dominant considerations are how to respond to issues vibrant in a party’s base constituencies and how to balance the influence of various moneyed interest groups.
It is after this that Leach begins to lay out a framework worth pondering.
st exclusively within whichever party controls Congress rather than between the parties. As the majority party increasingly views itself as the exclusive vehicle of legislative governance, the minority sees itself more in the European parliamentary tradition as the opposition; and vice-versa.
Far better it would be for all legislators to consider themselves responsible for governing and for both sides to recognize that the other has something to say and contribute. In a society as complicated as ours has become, it is irrational to think that Republicans cannot find some Democratic initiatives helpful to society and that Democrats cannot from time to time vote with Republicans.
He also offers a very blunt statement, that
civil discourse is about more than good manners. To label someone a "communist" may spark unspeakable acts; to call a country "evil" may cause a surprisingly dangerous counter-reaction.
Let me offer his conclusion before I offer a few thoughts of my own:
Civilization requires civility. Words matter. Just as polarizing attitudes can jeopardize social cohesion and even public safety, healing approaches such as Lincoln’s call for a new direction "with malice toward none" can uplift and help bring society and the world closer together.
Little is more important for the world’s leading democracy in this change-intensive century than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square.
If we don’t try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life?
To be willing to listen to the points of views of others - whether they are our domestic political opponents or those willing to take violent action against us - does not require us either to compromise core values nor to accept either the reasoning or the conclusions reached by the other. It is first to understand, because lacking such understanding the actions we take may be counterproductive to the goals we seek.
In terms of domestic politics, insofar as we are perceived part of the ratcheting up of rhetorical excess we lose the ability to persuade those in the middle. And if we are perceived as more responsible, the consequences are losses in otherwise winnable elections: I would argue that is major part of the devastating loss suffered by Creigh Deeds in Virginia.
Leach reminds us that
Citizenship is hard. It takes a willingness to listen, watch, read, and think in ways that allow the imagination to put one person in the shoes of another.
I would suggest that as partisan as we can be, as passionately as we may feel on issues, there still needs to be some limit to the rhetoric to which we turn in an attempt to win contests: in elections, on policy matters. . .
I often think of the words of Pogo looking out at the swamp, that we have seen the enemy and he is us. If we do not like the rhetorical excesses on the other side, should not that remind us that we can be forceful in our opposition without resorting to such extreme language? Or are our imaginations so limited, our ability to express so circumcised?
It is like the person who regularly resorts to obscenity, to whom dropping an F-Bomb is a normal part of his conversational arsenal - what is left for him to express extreme displeasure or anger? Or are we to assume that all he has to offer is anger and opposition?
It is not inappropriate to challenge the rhetoric of others. It is on occasion very much justified to call into question the motives behind an action taken by someone, especially someone who is unwilling to maintain some minimal standards of civility of discourse.
But keep this in mind - to argue that any action is justified is to lose all moral balance and judgment. It is to accept the kind of thinking that presumes I am right on all matters, my opponent is not, and my "rightness" entitles me to take any action to achieve my goals, regardless of the real costs of doing so. By that rationale, the idea that breaking the law is okay so long as you don't get caught pales into comparison to the Machiavellian notion that if the ends is worthy enough in our minds any means is justifiable. That is redolent of the kinds of thinking to which we so objected in the previous administration. It is the kind of thinking under which John Yoo could respond that crushing the testicles of a child in front of his father was an acceptable interrogation technique because it might enable obtaining information not otherwise available. It is the moral trap of the ticking bomb scenario. It is the distorted thinking behind acts like an Eric Rudolph blowing up abortion clinics and possibly killing those he opposed in the process>
I do not believe ANY human is infallible on all things, even if speaking ex cathedra - and here unwillingness to challenge the thinking of a leader political or religious is equivalent of granting that leader the stature claimed by the popes in expounding the doctrine of infallibility, a doctrine which, I might note has only been applied since it was propagated once - in declaring the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a dogma.
If we wish to maintain a democracy, we must be prepared to engage in political discourse with those of opposing views. We should also recognize that we can learn from those who oppose us. And in all humility we should recognize that we can be wrong. Discourse, open-mindedness, humility. Things that should be an essential part of how we engage in the political processes.
Absent civility we will lose the idea of a civil society.
Which is why I find the speech by Leach so important, and why I appreciate the column by Dionne calling it to my attention.
What about you?
Peace.