Bumped and Updated:I sent an email to Jeff wondering if the piece had ever been published – it was in the
Jan 27th version of the Hippo.
Fairly well done; all that one can ask is that you get quoted correctly and fairly – I was. It was amusing that the person chosen to be my ‘opposite’ was NH State Senator Lou D’Allesandro. BTW, when the Hippo didn’t work too well, Jeff suggested this
one.
=========================================================================
Timing can be everything. Earlier yesterday, Jeff Mucciarone from The Hippo (weekly out of Manchester, NH) emailed me:
I’m taking a look at the political discourse in New Hampshire to see if folks think it’s changed at all in recent years. A lot is obviously being made of the tone of political discourse, particularly at the national level. I wanted to get your thoughts on how hostile or not the discourse is here in NH? Have you seen it change at all?
Certainly the "national pundit / political environment" is all abuzz about this. Indeed, here in NH is, at least on the R side right now, is a tad "heated" as well and I chuckled as I read the email. I responded "OK" but also informed Jeff that since The Hippo had not treated the ‘Grok all that well in the past, #1 ground rule was that I would be recording the conversation as a backup to what could be written. He said fine and we had a great conversation! Permission was also given to post it up, so here it is:
Summary and Links:
- Like a large river, there are different currents of discourse depending on the level (e.g., national, state, county, or local), the issue, and the place (e.g., person to person, media, legislatures, or blogosphere) with different norms and customs. When they mix, problems happen.
- While I don’t think that we are any more or less obnoxious than other eras, what IS different is the notion Political
CastrationCorrectness which is nothing more than an attempt to: - become a victim
- portray "the other side" as a Neanderthal, cold hearted, or stupid
- win the argument, not by reason, but by demagoguery and shame
- The discussion is much larger, I think as everyday life has become much more politicized. Why? As Government gets larger, and laws, rules, and regulations become more intrusive, there is more fighting as to what is right or not. My feeling is that if government was much smaller and played less of a role in everyday living, the level / amount of political talk would probably go down (as WE would get to decide what happens instead of some branch of Govt).
- It is also a function of self-responsibility (or lack thereof). EVERYone can decide to use certain words, tone, or volume. It is a dodge to blame your actions on others – while there is truth in that some folks act different when alone than when in a mob, the decision to join the mob is still a core "ME" decision. We, as a society, are too apt to place blame on others and not on ourselves.
I had prepped a couple of links on…
…a couple stories I stumbled upon just yesterday (and not an exhaustive list of issues and areas):
From the Advice Goddess was this great, pithy example of how the political discourse is affected by Political Correctness and how "political combatants" use it as a cudgel, as a Professer at Roosevelt College found out:
"A group of sociologists did a poll in Arizona about the new immigration law. Sixty percent said they were in favor, and 40 percent said, ‘No hablo English.’"
Most people laugh at that. One grievance-monger turned that into a PC act that cost that Professor of 12 years his job.
…One student that filed a complaint, Cristina Solis, has spoken out, describing the outcome as fair and saying that she does not regret her decision to complain.
…She believes the remarks were inappropriate for "a school like Roosevelt University, which is based on social justice."
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has also taken on the case. A great example that there seems to be an unwritten rule that the First Amendment means you are not allowed to offend me (er, and I don’t have to tell you the rules for grievance either).
Over at RedState, here’s another case of "civil discourse" where Steve Cohen (D-TN), from the well of the US House, calls the Republicans the equivalent of Nazi Herman Goebbels. Er, that is, well, civil?
Hot Air has the news that Senator Reid called Chinese President Hu Jintao a dictator. Put aside the truth or falseness of that statement – when the head of another country is being officially received by our President, is that "civil"?
Politics is both hard and comes with sharp edges – always has been and probably always will. Almost two weeks out from the Tuscon tragedy, the above example FROM YESTERDAY show that "calm and reason" lasted not even that short amount of time.
"Our democracy is noisy" (H/T: Scott, for that); our forefathers created it as such. We will scream and yell and we will watch the results of dirty tricks, backstabbing, "under the bus moments" happen before our eyes even the actions actually happen behind the political curtains.
Even though the Tuscon tragedy, where a Democrat Congresswoman was wounded and a Republican judge was killed, started the conversation, we know that this type of acts of political violence are rare in our society and culture. Will it change the discourse, level or civility?
I doubt it.
