I haven’t posted as much as I have wanted to over the past couple of weeks; I keep trying to bounce back from this chronic, upper-respiratory condition that I’ve had since Iraq. Aside from the annoying chills and sweats, it leaves me very fatigued and cognitively dull. I saw a doctor this week who specializes in toxicity, so hopefully over the next few months we may get some answers.
I wanted to write today largely because of a series of exchanges on a friend’s Facebook page. The English major in me can’t say in one sentence what I can say in a paragraph, so my posts tend to be somewhat long (if you’re reading this, you’ll understand). But even more, the topic under discussion was about the violent rhetoric that seems to permeate an unfortunate amount of the political discourse today. This is neither a simple nor an easily discussed topic; considering the amount of cliché, sound bites, and ultimately meaningless words and phrases meant to inspire emotional response (“liberal,” “conservative,” “communist,” etc.), I also think that it’s best to make oneself as clear as possible by steering away from such terminology. So let me recap briefly the issue.
I’m certainly not the first person to have noticed the incivility and outright hostility that currently passes for “political dialogue.” Not that I think that there’s ever been a time in American history when we’ve discussed differences in the marketplace of ideas as civilized, thoughtful, dignified human beings. However, it seems to me that we at least used to hold that as an ideal to strive towards. This is no longer the case. Neither side of the political spectrum–right or left–is innocent; however, the political right seems to be much more tolerant of harsh, even violent language in advancing its agenda. Case in point: the number of so-called “jokes” that circulate in which the current president or another political figure is harmed in some way. One or two such incidents can be dismissed, but when these go on for years at a time, and appear against a background of strident, hostile, ad-hominem attacks, we see a symptom of a much larger problem.
It would take a large number of sociologists and historians several years to tease out all the different threads that have gone into creating the current climate. Personally, I think it goes back at least to Ronald Reagan. I can recall very well comments he made which portrayed those who disagreed with his policies as un-American, traitors against the country and all it stood for. This began a 30-year process in which those who identified themselves with the political right felt it was acceptable to demonize those who held alternative beliefs. Over time, the appellation “liberal” lost its meaning and came to simply signify “a person set out to destroy America.” And, in true McCarthy-era style, terms like “communist” and “socialist”, also devoid of their original meanings, became joined to “liberal” to create visceral, irrational anger directed towards anyone on whom the label fell.
Along with the devolution of discourse, the hyper-emotional nature of right-wing rhetoric unsurprisingly came to employ references to violence. It’s understandable: if one perceives his or her home as being under threat, and if that person believes that violence is an acceptable means of resistance, then violence becomes a viable option. This is not to say that people who identify themselves as “conservative” or “on the right” advocate or will engage in violence; what it does say is that violent language and behavior becomes a part of a mindset that underlies one’s politics. And because this is based largely on emotions rather than rational thinking, as soon as a dialogue becomes emotional, out comes the violent rhetoric. I see this happen in particular when people are confronted with facts and logical arguments that call their viewpoints into question. Rather than arguing back with facts and logic, rather than having a dialogue, out come the accusations and threats.
I have personal experience with some of this. After I returned from Iraq, I was involved in several organizations working to put a stop to this illegal, immoral, and unjust war. I gave talks & speeches and participated in rallies & protests. Quite a few times, there were so-called “counter-protesters” who screamed–literally screamed–vulgarities, slurs, and threats at me. I particularly resented being called a traitor, as I had given 20 years of my life to military service, and deployed to a war that I didn’t believe in because I felt duty bound to do so. [An aside: I find it interesting, too, the hypocrisy of having been told one must always support one's president in time of war, until the president comes Obama.]
We also have to acknowledge the debt we owe to Fox News in having contributed to the erosion of civility. This is not simply because I dislike Fox News–although I do. Rupert Murdoch and his crony Roger Ailes make no secret of their conservative, pro-business bias, and their willingness to do anything to advance their beliefs. Now this in itself may or may not be a bad thing (although I still have this antiquated notion that news reporting should be as objective as possible, not biased). The problem is that Murdoch and Ailes have a long record of willingness to engage in distortions and outright lies to advance these beliefs. This was of course aided and abetted by the conservative Ronald Reagan who did away with “the fairness doctrine,” which from 1949 until 1988 required news broadcasts to be balanced in their reporting (another antiquated notion that an intelligent electorate could make up its own mind if given all the facts). Anyone who believes that Fox News is truly “fair and balanced” is remaining willfully ignorant of the facts. Murdoch made his fortune in sensationalist, tabloid news; it’s what he knows, and is what he uses.
Of course I can’t say that there is any one person at Fox News who openly advocates violence against “liberals”. However, by continuing to feed people’s negative emotions, by continually telling them that the people who disagree with them want to destroy their homes, their families, and their lives, such reporters, anchors, and pundits become part of this larger problem. While one cannot say that Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity encouraged a specific act of violence, their over-the-top rhetoric and demonization of others creates an environment where violence can happen. Sad but true: people can be pushed to behave in anti-social ways. It was none other than Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe Reichsmarschall, who said, “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
One of my professors in graduate school always asked the question, “who does this benefit?” The beneficiaries of the hyperbole-driven, intolerant, violent-laced rhetoric are those who seek to maintain the economic and political status quo. Economically, the United States has seen a decrease in the standard of living over the past 30 years, where the earnings of middle-class and working-class Americans have stagnated or fallen, and the wealth of the top 10% has risen. Additionally, corporations have been granted the same rights as human beings, even though corporations are political entities, some of which possess wealth in excess of many countries. Only a person living in a fantasy world would imagine that the American economy is a level playing field for all participants; the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful corporations. Politically, the divide within the American people along this arbitrary left-right, liberal-conservative spectrum serves to ensure that the majority of Americans spend more time questioning the sanity and patriotism of other Americans than they do pay attention to the laws and policies that continually erode their lives. The phrase “divide and conquer” comes to mind (see the Goering quote above).
One of the ironies in all of this is that there actually seems to me to be broad areas where so-called liberals and conservatives actually agree. For example, the rise of the “Tea Party” over the past couple of years shows the anger that many Americans feel towards their government. I and many of my friends on the left completely agree with this anger. The problem is that the justifiable anger becomes co-opted into a political movement which ultimately supports the interests of big business, as well as the political status quo. The American people, naturally, lose out.
So what’s the answer? I don’t know. There is an inertia that has built up over 30+ years that’s going to be hard to resist. However, I do have faith in the American people. I believe that most Americans are honest, hard-working, tolerant, and fair-minded, no matter what label one puts on them. I believe that most Americans are perfectly capable of setting aside bias in order to engage in meaningful discussions that can reach common ground. But this is going to have to happen at the grass-roots level; we cannot expect our political, social, or business leaders to bring this about. For my part, even though I’m still somewhat prone to anger (one of those things that war does to you), I try very hard to respond to those who attacked me with calm, reason, understanding, and compassion. I always hope that I will be accorded the same respect, of course; ultimately, it’s all I can do.
aim at New England. We’ve begun to get the leading edge rain, but the Saturday still remains fairly quiet. We’ve laid in several day’s worth of supplies, so there’s little to do but wait out the storm.
