The Left & The Politization Of Tragedy

[shagdrum]

Shag speaks rather foolishly of twitter posts and threats against Ms Palin. Does he have any idea of the magnitude of the threats and vitriol that has gone hand in hand with this presidency - in fact, with any presidency? She wants to be presidential - this comes with the territory. Heck, I am sure Rush Limbaugh gets worse, or Bill Mahar. She is a political pundit at this point - Glenn Beck gets death threats all the time, so does Olbermann...

If you had a sincere interest in raising the level of dialog, you would not try to excuse the death threats but specifically condemn them (without any "disclaimer" that serves to shift the focus away from the death threats and the actions of the Left).

Instead, you just exposed yourself as furthering the "ricochet" strategy being played out in the mainstream media.

I noticed that no one is discussing the Elephant in the Room - Palin's little debacle on Facebook earlier in the day.

 

[foxpaws]

If you had a sincere interest in raising the level of dialog, you would not try to excuse the death threats but specifically condemn them (without any "disclaimer" that serves to shift the focus away from the death threats and the actions of the Left).

Instead, you just exposed yourself as furthering the "ricochet" strategy being played out in the mainstream media.

well, lets search to see how many times you have condemned death threats against democrats, liberals or the left...

ah.....

none.

so - here you go - this needs to stop - the death threats, the labeling of traitor, the cry of stopping our enemy with 2nd amendment solutions. On both sides - They are wrong against Palin, they are wrong against Obama, they are wrong against anyone.

However, I noticed that you only decry the actions of the left shag - how about it - how about trying cross over and decry the actions of the right. I have a long list from both sides if you need a starting point.

 

[Calabrio]

It isn't political deception cal - it is an opportunity to create good from evil.

No, it's political stagecraft.

The attack had nothing to do with the tone of politics. The issue is entirely unrelated to the events of that day.

Instead of this particular piece of branding, would it be appropriate to use the murder to advance some other political message? Would it be acceptable to say, "In order to have some good come of this horrible event, we should eliminate the capital gains tax?" And then print T-shirts and have a rally on a college campus?

Is it any different?
One has NOTHING to do with the other.

"In order for something good to come of this tragedy, we need to spend more money to treat AIDS in Africa."

Is there a difference?
Again, one has NOTHING to do with the other.

And if you disagree with such a thing, I'll have to ask, why do you hate Africans? And why do you still want them to die of AIDS?

But this campaign is even more insidious because it's so grossly manipulative and opportunistic. You guys did a good job on this one.

That's the beauty of having you around here, whether through experience or association, you usually demonstrate what's going to happen before it does.

 

[shagdrum]

so - here you go - this needs to stop - the death threats, the labeling of traitor, the cry of stopping our enemy with 2nd amendment solutions. On both sides - They are wrong against Palin, they are wrong against Obama, they are wrong against anyone.

There is no reaction to this event from the right that appears to be encouraging death threats against Obama.

However, we have a Nobel Laurette who arguably defines economic views on the left taking the opportunity this even presents to smear the right (never mind the flaws and lies in his "analysis"). We have countless news stories from the hard Left mainstream media legitimizing this notion that the right and the political atmosphere "created" by the right is somehow responsible for this tragedy. In the process, the media is naming names; specifically Palin. Not surprisingly we see a rise in death threats against Palin.

This is of course the same ricochet strategy that was played out first in the Oklahoma city bombing and has since been applied in numerous tragedies since. Anything less then an unequivocal condemnation of those actions only plays into that ricochet strategy.

The entire notion of "political atmosphere" leading to this tragedy is entirely manufactured. Perpetuating that false narrative only serves to legitimize the argument and reinforce the political strategy. It is support of an attempt to deceive that is creating a caustic political atmosphere. I pointed out earlier that the deception of propagandists inhibit civil discourse and that is precisely what is being played on on the National stage.

 

[foxpaws]

There is no reaction to this event from the right that appears to be encouraging death threats against Obama.
<snip>
I pointed out earlier that the deception of propagandists inhibit civil discourse and that is precisely what is being played on on the National stage.

So, you cannot decry the actions of the right that have encouraged death threats in the past and still do. Shag, don't you see, it isn't just about now, it is about the future and the past. Do you really want me to point to stories where the FBI tracks death threats against Obama and other political figures, left and right - and correlates them to the events that cause them to rise?

You can't overcome your own propaganda of the past.

 

[foxpaws]

No, it's political stagecraft.

The attack had nothing to do with the tone of politics. The issue is entirely unrelated to the events of that day.

And I agree with you Cal - it probably didn't. Once again - I won't go as far as to say this absolutely, I will wait for evidence, it could be he had something against conservative dems, because he was so far left, and felt compelled by rhetoric to do something about it. Once again, currently it looks like this is only the act of a mad man, and hateful rhetoric from either side doubtfully had any part.

Instead of this particular piece of branding, would it be appropriate to use the murder to advance some other political message? Would it be acceptable to say, "In order to have some good come of this horrible event, we should eliminate the capital gains tax?" And then print T-shirts and have a rally on a college campus?

Perhaps so. However, since the knee jerk reaction on the left was to pin blame on the right - that is what came to the forefront. The images of a map covered with crosshairs and Giffords speaking out against the use of imagery is what was splashed across the media (yes, left).

It is political opportunity to then use what is handed to you and to take it and 'run with it'.

The anti gun people will use this, the people who think we don't spend enough on mental health care will use this, Fair Doctrine advocates will use this, a variety of causes will take this and 'run with it'.

The right has taken this and has also politicized it. Albeit it, in a different light - don't blame me, see how Obama is trying to.... take away your guns, your ammo, your first amendment.

Is it any different?
One has NOTHING to do with the other.

"In order for something good to come of this tragedy, we need to spend more money to treat AIDS in Africa."

Is there a difference?
Again, one has NOTHING to do with the other.

And if you disagree with such a thing, I'll have to ask, why do you hate Africans? And why do you still want them to die of AIDS?

And if Jared had targeted blacks with aids - even though it might have just been a random killing, there would be a politicizing of the event down that path as well.

Timing, circumstance, the people involved, their past comments, all lead to re-evaluation of our rhetoric in the aftermath of this tragedy. I personally think the most damning piece here is Giffords' own statement regarding the 'crossfire' map, and the rhetoric of 'reload', along with her questioning the consequences of posting an image like that. Before that piece of tape got very little play, but after the tragedy it was shoved in front of the public. Those events, past and present, are what create the current link. Not that this tragedy was cause by violent rhetoric, but that our rhetoric was placed 'front and center' in the aftermath, and things like Giffords' taped response seem eerily precognitive.

But this campaign is even more insidious because it's so grossly manipulative and opportunistic. You guys did a good job on this one.

That's the beauty of having you around here, whether through experience or association, you usually demonstrate what's going to happen before it does.

So, cal, do you think the call to tone down our rhetoric is wrong? Circumstances set aside, do you believe that the message that the president gave last night, that we need to stop and reflect - and make sure that "our democracy lives up to our childrens' expectations" is a good one, no matter what circumstances drive it to the forefront of debate?

And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle. ​

 

[Calabrio]

And I agree with you Cal - it probably didn't.

Probably?
The President even acknowledged in the speech last night the the attack was not motivated by political rhetoric at all, yet you refuse to release it because you want to ring every ounce of political exploitation out of this tragedy as you possibly can, for as long as you can.

Once again, currently it looks like this is only the act of a mad man, and hateful rhetoric from either side doubtfully had any part.

But you won't let that stand in the way of an effective political attack campaign and rebranding of the President, will you?

No. Why? Because this move to "civility" is little more than a political ploy. Rebrand the president and impede the political momentum the newly elected House Republicans have.

This is a gross political exploitation of a tragedy.

It is political opportunity to then use what is handed to you and to take it and 'run with it'.

The ends justify the means, don't they?
But while you urge civility, attack people, and exploit the murder and maiming of 20 people while lying to the public. Very civil.

The right has taken this and has also politicized it. Albeit it, in a different light - don't blame me, see how Obama is trying to.... take away your guns, your ammo, your first amendment.

Defending yourself from a political campaign being advanced by the political left and media is now called "politicizing it?"

Is this new era of civility you are now advancing, you know, the one where any criticism of the President is considered distasteful, I guess it's also accepted that anyone who disagrees sits quietly while they are blamed for mass murder.

And it's "opportunistic" to point to ACTUAL EVENTS, actual legislators who are moving forward bills imposing restrictions of firearms?
You want to silence that as "polarizing," and even while silencing the opinion, you then condemn the voices for being concerned about their 1st amendment too!

Sort of sounds like you'd like to silence dissenting voices.
Seems like this is entire campaign has that goal in mind too.
Very clever.

And if Jared had targeted blacks with aids - even though it might have just been a random killing, there would be a politicizing of the event down that path as well.

But he didn't. You didn't answer my question.

Six people died. No one was killed because of their political beliefs.
One politician was criticially injured and likely left handicapped, not because of anything she actually did, but because of the delusions of a madman.

The question isn't what a manipulative, soulless, political consultant might suggest or try to do to exploit the emotions of the public and save the agenda of the party, but would it be right or decent?

No, it wouldn't.

Timing, circumstance, the people involved, their past comments, all lead to re-evaluation of our rhetoric in the aftermath of this tragedy.

No,the only thing that has led to this "re-evaluation" is the political opportunism of the Democrat party in the wake of their massive losses this November and the brand appeal of the President.

So, cal, do you think the call to tone down our rhetoric is wrong

Asking me this question is as relevant to the event as asking me about National Energy Policy, or whether I think we should continue to fund the Federal Department of Education....

Oh wait- a little girl was killed this weekend.
Perhaps you guys should exploit her heartbreaking death and use it demonize everyone who thinks the department of education should be eliminated too....
I can't wait to see the logo on the t-shirts!

Speaking of which, where can I get some Obama/Ft Hood T-shirts?

 

[foxpaws]

Probably?
The President even acknowledged in the speech last night the the attack was not motivated by political rhetoric at all, yet you refuse to release it because you want to ring out every ounce of political exploitation out of this tragedy as you possibly can, for as long as you can.

Judge, jury and executioner than are you Cal - or just vigilante?

Is this new era of civility you are now advancing, you know, the one where any criticism of the President is considered distasteful, I guess it's also accepted that anyone who disagrees sits quietly while they are blamed for mass murder.

Why isn't it appropriate to take up this issue at this time? Would there be a more appropriate time? When would that time be? When the right proposes it? But they have, even Ailes has asked for his pundits to tone it down.

Criticize all you want - it isn't about that - and you know, if you think it is appropriate to tell someone that they should be taken out by exercising the 2nd amendment - well, fine, you can do that - I don't think we should ever take that away. I do think though that I should then be able to point to that, and call you on it. That type of rhetoric is wrong. Just because I would be willing to die so that both the left and the right is allowed to spew their hatred, doesn't mean that I have to say that it is 'right'. The violent rhetoric is wrong.

Palin should stand up and take issue with what was said against her - she isn't a murderer. However, within her 'talk' she spoke of how she was hurt by words. Can she not see the other side of the fence?

We have been handed an opportunity to move beyond the hateful rhetoric that has been present on either side. If you are able - you grasp these types of good opportunities, no matter what the matter what the impetus is. Cal - the cause is just - although you appear to think that it isn't.

And it's "opportunistic" to point to ACTUAL EVENTS, actual legislators who are moving forward bills imposing restrictions of firearms?
You want to silence that as "polarizing," and even while silencing the opinion, you then condemn the voices for being concerned about their 1st amendment too!

Cal - all I stated was that the right will use this event as a rallying point as well - using gun rights and first amendment rights. I think if you look at the very first post I had on the shooting I stated it would be politicized, and on both sides of the fence.

Six people died. No one was killed because of their political beliefs.
One politician was criticially injured and likely left handicapped, not because of anything she actually did, but because of the delusions of a madman.

She is in a hospital room because she is a politician, that is what she did. She went into public service, and became a target for a madman. It may have not been her political beliefs, but it was because she was a public figure, a politician Cal.

Speaking of which, where can I get some Obama/Ft Hood T-shirts?

Cal, who created the t-shirts at the Tucson event? Who placed them on the back of the chairs? Who was trying to create a sense of unity and community? Who was it Cal? Could it have been, gasp, members of the community?

Again, will you continue to support, condone, or encourage rhetoric that is violent?

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, don't you see, it isn't just about now, it is about the future and the past.

Yep. Like the Leftist politicization of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and numerous other national tragedies the left has exploited since then.

Paul Wellstone was a Democrat Senator from Minnesota up for reelection who died in a plane crash on October 25th, 2002; just 11 days before the election. Former Vice President Walter Mondale was chosen to run in Wellstone's place. Here is a video from Wellstone's "Memorial Service"...

YouTube - Paul Wellstone Funeral - Election Rally

Personally, I have never seen a more shameless and disgusting attempt to manipulate the emotions of people and ruthlessly capitalize on tragedy then this Campaign Rally.

This disgusting act ended up effecting the National Election by leaving a bad taste in people's mouth and giving Republicans a boost.

 

[shagdrum]

And I agree with you Cal - it probably didn't.

Then there is NO reason to say that this incident should lead us to raise the level of discourse...unless it is to use false calls for "civility" unless it is as a means to manipulate peoples emotions to marginalize and reshape the debate toward that end.

This whole line of argument only serves to turn civility into a means to stifle political dissent.

Can you agree with me that this tragedy should NOT result in ANY policy that stifles political dissent?

 

[foxpaws]

Yep. Like the Leftist politicization of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and numerous other national tragedies the left has exploited since then.

Paul Wellstone was a Democrat Senator from Minnesota up for reelection who died in a plane crash on October 25th, 2002; just 11 days before the election. Former Vice President Walter Mondale was chosen to run in Wellstone's place. Here is a video from Wellstone's "Memorial Service"...

Shag - are you comparing Obama's speech last night to Wellstone?

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, instead of continuing to try and distort what I am saying or asking leading questions aimed at shifting to speculation about "actions of the right", how about you answer my question;

Can you agree with me that this tragedy should NOT result in ANY policy that stifles political dissent?

You keep supporting a narrative that talks about reaching common ground, there is it. Can you agree with that notion?

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, instead of continuing to try and distort what I am saying or asking leading questions aimed at shifting to speculation about "actions of the right", how about you answer my question;

Can you agree with me that this tragedy should NOT result in ANY policy that stifles political dissent?

You keep supporting a narrative that talks about reaching common ground, there is it. Can you agree with that notion?

sorry - i thought I had answered this... It obviously ended up in bit heaven.

This tragedy should not result in any law or policy that removes our right to dissent or stiffles free speech whatsoever.
However, are you comparing Wellstone to Obama's speech last night shag?

 

[foxpaws]

Then there is NO reason to say that this incident should lead us to raise the level of discourse...unless it is to use false calls for "civility" unless it is as a means to manipulate peoples emotions to marginalize and reshape the debate toward that end.

This whole line of argument only serves to turn civility into a means to stifle political dissent.

Can you agree with me that this tragedy should NOT result in ANY policy that stifles political dissent?

What line of argument serves to turn civility into a means to stifle political dissent - that we should voluntarily strive to be better?

 

[shagdrum]

This tragedy should not result in any law or policy that removes our right to dissent or stiffles free speech whatsoever.

Good. Glad we can at least agree on that.

As to what line of argument serves to turn "civility" into a means of stifling political dissent, the obvious means of using this as a catalyst for Net Neutrality or a return to the Fairness Doctrine come to mind (there have been people calling for as much for quite some time).

There is also the more subtle means of stifling dissent that is traditionally mobilized through political correctness that concern me.

Talk of civility is all well and good but it can serve as a means of confined speech to a narrow area that is considered "reasonable" with anything else deemed unreasonable and the people promoting the unreasonable being "uncivil". What is "out of bounds" in discourse is determined arbitrarily and can be manipulated by the right people in ways favorable to their agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine served to established a Leftist monopoly in the media which was then able to control the debate. After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, that media monopoly as well as the peer pressure brought to bear by political correctness served that function for a while too by getting people to stifle themselves.

With the erosion of the Leftist media monopoly as well as the rise of new media sources and an overabundance of information (as well as the rise of various think tanks) political correctness is slowing being eroded away.

Of course those who used to control the debate are now seeing that control slipping away and, having relied on an uneven playing field for generations, they cannot honestly compete in the realm of ideas. Therefore they want to gain back the control they once had on the debate.

This leads to calls for Net Neutrality, a return to the Fairness Doctrine and other means of controlling and/or stifling opposing voices. There is also an attempt to re-establish political correctness which serves to shame people into accepting debate on Leftist terms. This was the ultimate message behind Jon Stewart's "Rally To Restore Sanity" and it is the message of his radio show.

I personally know far to many people who's information about society starts with Jon Stewart and ends with Bill Maher. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any debate with these people. Any attempt ends with them throwing a temper tantrum and engaging in personal attacks when you question any of their false notions about Palin, the Tea Partiers, etc. because you inherently question their sense of moral superiority.

The aggressor frames the debate and this childish aggression is what people like Maher, Stewart, Krugman, Olberman, etc. are encouraging; the narrative is one that convinces people that only Leftist thought is legitimate and self-evidently true. It encourages both ignorance of opposing views and an arrogance that cannot be allowed to grow in our national dialog.

These are aggressive attempts to re-establish the narrative, reframe the debate and strengthen political correctness in it's effects on controlling discourse. This tragedy and the calls for civility are simply more of the same, simply packaged in a manner to play off people's sympathies in a time of sadness and mourning.

The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less. If this unfortunate incident leads one to reflect on their approach to discourse, it starts with figuring out what specifically inhibits discourse and then making an effort to avoid those things in one self.

Instead, the calls for civility are being framed in such as way as to create the appearance of one side contributing to vitriolic discourse and don't lead to any personal introspection.

Fortunately, this confirmation of contempt is confined to the Left because the political "middle" sees through these transparent attempts to politicize this tragedy. It is ultimately only going to result in further marginalization of the Left. The ricochet strategy is backfiring.

However, are you comparing Wellstone to Obama's speech last night shag?

Not at all and, frankly, that should be clear from what I have said. Obama's speech was very presidential and what the nation needed to hear.

 

[foxpaws]

Good. Glad we can at least agree on that.

As to what line of argument serves to turn "civility" into a means of stifling political dissent, the obvious means of using this as a catalyst for Net Neutrality or a return to the Fairness Doctrine come to mind (there have been people calling for as much for quite some time).

Once again shag - I don't want the fairness doctrine reinstated - nor am I for Net Neutrality. I am not for 'law' that forces us to be civil -

However, can we not be 'civil'?

There is also the more subtle means of stifling dissent that is traditionally mobilized through political correctness that concern me.

Talk of civility is all well and good but it can serve as a means of confined speech to a narrow area that is considered "reasonable" with anything else deemed unreasonable and the people promoting the unreasonable being "uncivil". What is "out of bounds" in discourse is determined arbitrarily and can be manipulated by the right people in ways favorable to their agenda.

Yes shag - it can be manipulated, if we don't have law that binds it. So, how to get to civil discourse, without confining us with unconstitutional law? Don't you think that is something we should strive for? Or do you think it is beyond us. That we have passed the point of being able to have civil discourse again in this country?

The Fairness Doctrine served to established a Leftist monopoly in the media which was then able to control the debate. After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, that media monopoly as well as the peer pressure brought to bear by political correctness served that function for a while too by getting people to stifle themselves.

With the erosion of the Leftist media monopoly as well as the rise of new media sources and an overabundance of information (as well as the rise of various think tanks) political correctness is slowing being eroded away.

Of course those who used to control the debate are now seeing that control slipping away and, having relied on an uneven playing field for generations, they cannot honestly compete in the realm of ideas. Therefore they want to gain back the control they once had on the debate.

I understand that shag. However, I feel you are wrong in 'labeling' that the 'other side' cannot honestly compete in the realm of ideas. Often it feels as though the realm of ideas quickly degrades into mudslinging. Perhaps the left feels that they cannot honestly compete in the realm of sludge. In fact, I don't think they can. Consistently programs that have a left wing bent that try to sling mud fail. I don't know why - the far left and the far right are about similarly populated. Left bent programs that don't sling mud fare better however.

If you watch Face the Nation, or if you ever had the chance to watch Buckley - good ideas from both sides are very apparent. Watch the PBS News Hour on Friday night - left and right can both state viewpoints, good ideas, without having to wade through crap.

This leads to calls for Net Neutrality, a return to the Fairness Doctrine and other means of controlling and/or stifling opposing voices. There is also an attempt to re-establish political correctness which serves to shame people into accepting debate on Leftist terms. This was the ultimate message behind Jon Stewart's "Rally To Restore Sanity" and it is the message of his radio show.

It doesn't 'have' to lead to legislation shag, or 'political correctness'. But why can't you have a discussion about differences in political thought without creating an atmosphere that if you don't agree with me you are unAmerican or a traitor. Reagan and Tip O'Neill had huge differences - but they would in no way accuse the other of being 'unAmerican' or even that one was more 'American' than the other.

Jon Stewart has a radio show?

However, the Restore Sanity rally was an answer to Beck's rally - both of which used imagery to create a 'political' correctness atmosphere. Beck did it with flag waving and invoking God, Stewart did it with saying we are all in this together, and look deeply at what you are accusing people of. If you aren't with Beck, you aren't a good American, nor are you with God. If you aren't with Stewart you don't understand what it means to be an American, and I didn't see a tie-in with God in his rally.

I personally know far to many people who's information about society starts with Jon Stewart and ends with Bill Maher. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any debate with these people. Any attempt ends with them throwing a temper tantrum and engaging in personal attacks when you question any of their false notions about Palin, the Tea Partiers, etc.

And I know many people who's information about being an American starts with Beck and ends with Rush. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any debate with these people. Any attempt ends with them throwing a temper tantrum and then throwing out terms that you must be a communist, marxist, traitor, devil worshiper, if you don't agree with them in their entirety.

Shag - there will always be people like that - that won't go away. However, can't we look to our leaders to set a better example. Should we really have congresspeople, governors, senators, calling for people to be shot, stating that the people on the other side of the aisle are enemies.

I don't want to stifle Beck or Mahar. What I want though is for our leaders to not take their cues from them. What is acceptable on talk radio shouldn't be acceptable on the floor of the Capitol. We can't regulate that - but we can vote it in, or vote it out.

The aggressor frames the debate and this childish aggression is what people like Maher, Stewart, Krugman, Olberman, etc. are encouraging; the narrative is one that convinces people that only Leftist thought is legitimate and self-evidently true. It encourages an ignorant arrogance that cannot be allowed to grow in our national dialog.

No it can't - but we also can't be allowed to think that calling someone a traitor because they vote differently than you do is legitimate either. We have discourse, we have differences, but voting differently isn't a sign of being a traitor. That encourages a stifling of thought in a whole different way shag. An arrogance of 'my way or you are a traitor' has been allowed to grow in our national dialog. We are all Americans - and because I am for DADT doesn't mean that I am a traitor to my country. However, there are those that label me as such, because of my support of this single issue.

These are aggressive attempts to re-establish the narrative, reframe the debate and strengthen political correctness in it's effects on discourse. This tragedy and the calls for civility are simply more of the same, simply packaged in a manner to play off people's sympathies in a time of sadness and mourning.

That should not be allowed to happen. The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less. If this unfortunate incident leads one to reflect on their approach to discourse, it starts with figuring out what specifically inhibits discourse and then making an effort to avoid those things personally.

Why take the lowest possible road on this shag - can we not really change? Maybe that is the tact you are really wanting to take here - I can't tell. The cure for bad speech is not 'more speech' but 'better speech'. Is the cure for obesity more food, is the cure for alcoholism more booze? I want us to always have all the speech we want - good and bad. But should you really label the call for civility as a mere 'political trick'? Can't we actually try it.

Fortunately, this confirmation of contempt is confined to the left as the political "middle" sees through these transparent attempts to politicize this tragedy. It is ultimately only going to result in further marginalization of the Left.

You are right shag - politicizing the tragedy as a way to demonize the right is something that didnt sit well with the American people. Rightly so. However, I believe you don't see the larger picture. Middle America is becoming tired of the muck. Why do you think Obama was elected? A great deal of his appeal had to do with his promise that Washington could change - that it didn't have to be partisan politics as usual. He hasn't succeeded - in fact I think we are more divided than ever. But that doesn't mean that message doesn't still resonate with the American people. As a whole, middle America doesn't like violent rhetoric, and if that finally is brought to the forefront as a real issue, I think the candidates that rise above the lowest common denominator will have a chance of winning.

Not at all and, frankly, that should be clear from what I have said. Obama's speech was very presidential and what the nation needed to hear.

Sorry - I found the 'timing' of posting a bit odd.

 

[shagdrum]

Candidates/politicians cannot help us rise above the lowest common denominator. It is a personal battle that each of us must fight and that is next to impossible with demagogues and propagandists manipulating and inhibiting civil discourse.

I gave my synopsis of the two big factors that inhibit civil discourse. Not only do we need to watch for those in ourselves, but in others and point it out. It can be pointed out civilly but it needs to be pointed out.

Focusing on civil discourse misses the whole purpose of discourse. What should be the focus of discourse if not to try and seek the truth and determine what is best for society? Civil discourse is certainly something to strive for, but is it more important the that function?

 

[foxpaws]

Help us rise above the lowest common denominator? Shouldn't that be what our leaders do shag? Don't we look to them for guidance, for direction, for ideas, for solutions? You just mentioned that is what Obama did - that he gave us a direction, leadership. It might be a personal battle - but within this battle don't we look for allies, and shouldn't some of those allies be our political leaders?

The president said, "isn't this what our children deserve, our best example?"

We get angry when our sports heroes 'let us down' with bad behavior, even when celebrities show bad judgment. We know that our children look to those public figures as examples. Shouldn't we feel the same sense of anger when our politicians aren't setting the stage with the same type of good principles for our children, for us?

We obviously need to focus on finding the truth - but when the incivility of our discourse becomes the most defining part that we take away from the debate, the truth gets lost. Do you hear the truth, or do you hear the hate.

 

[shagdrum]

Help us rise above the lowest common denominator? Shouldn't that be what our leaders do shag? Don't we look to them for guidance, for direction, for ideas, for solutions?

Maybe we could try taking responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

We obviously need to focus on finding the truth - but when the incivility of our discourse becomes the most defining part that we take away from the debate, the truth gets lost. Do you hear the truth, or do you hear the hate.

I don't see any "but" there. Discourse should focus on finding the truth. Period.

To a point incivility is a byproduct of that. It can certainly get out of hand and we should strive to minimize it, but we cannot eliminate it and it is very dangerous to attempt to do so. The ONLY way to do that is by limiting discourse and when you limit discourse, society suffers. There needs to be a VERY clear distinction between minimizing incivility and striving to eliminate incivility. The former encourages dialog while the latter stifles it.

 

[shagdrum]

hmmm...

...Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA), a member of the Socialist Party and progressive caucuses in the U.S. House, with the backing of some fellow Democrats, says he will introduce a bill that would make it a federal crime to "use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress," according to Peter Schroeder, writing for The Hill.

Brady singled out a 2008 map with crosshairs on twenty congressional districts, including Giffords', that had been posted on a website of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as the type of rhetoric he opposed. "You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.​

 

[foxpaws]

Maybe we could try taking responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

And we should - I am not stating that shag - what I am stating is that the men and women who sit in the houses of congress can lead by example, and we should expect that of them. Once again - we currently seem to expect more of our athletes, or rap singers than we do of the political leaders of our country.

I don't see any "but" there. Discourse should focus on finding the truth. Period.

There is a 'but' shag - if you can't hear the truth for the hate - the truth is lost.

To a point incivility is a byproduct of that. It can certainly get out of hand and we should strive to minimize it, but we cannot eliminate it and it is very dangerous to attempt to do so. The ONLY way to do that is by limiting discourse and when you limit discourse, society suffers. There needs to be a VERY clear distinction between minimizing incivility and striving to eliminate incivility. The former encourages dialog while the latter stifles it.

We can't eliminate it - I have stated that over and over again. What we can do is 'expect civility', and as voters we can 'expect' it of our elected officials. We expect that our elected officials hold to certain ethics standards, I believe we can also use similar criteria with regards to civility.

I think Brady (who isn't a member of the Socialist party) is wrong - we cannot do this by law.

 

[shagdrum]

And we should - I am not stating that shag - what I am stating is that the men and women who sit in the houses of congress can lead by example, and we should expect that of them.

Legislatures are the MOST IMPORTANT venues to have spirited debate. While concerns for civility and decorum should be observed, they are unquestionably a secondary concern that takes a back seat to a concern for open discourse.

There is a 'but' shag - if you can't hear the truth for the hate - the truth is lost.

This what I have been saying. But the "hate" is a function of demagogue and, this a, function of the dogmatic propagandists. Observing the quest for truth which is the overriding concern inherently keeps passions and emotions (like "hate") in check.

We can't eliminate it - I have stated that over and over again. What we can do is 'expect civility', and as voters we can 'expect' it of our elected officials.

Appealing to "civility" can be manipulative in large part because it is ill defined or understood. In order to combat and minimize civility it has to first be determined what factors lead to that incivility in discourse. I have spelled out what I view as the two big factors in that regard.

If we don't focus on the causes of incivility, then we have no point of reference and others can attribute incivility to any position or statement is convenient for them. To minimize incivility we first have to take out the vagueness in the idea.

I think Brady (who isn't a member of the Socialist party) is wrong - we cannot do this by law.

Again, I am glad we can agree on that.

 

[foxpaws]

Legislatures are the MOST IMPORTANT venues to have spirited debate. While concerns for civility and decorum should be observed, they are unquestionably a secondary concern that takes a back seat to a concern for open discourse.

Yes - the quest for truth is paramount. However, currently truth has become secondary to the politics of hate. You can have passion in your beliefs-spirit in your debate and still be civil. We need to tell our politicians, with our votes, that the politics of hate aren't acceptable. Politicians are professionals - I expect pundits to exercise the politics of hate, I expect the professionals I vote into office to have passion in their beliefs, not hate in their rhetoric.

If we don't focus on the causes of incivility, then we have no point of reference and others can attribute incivility to any position or statement is convenient for them. To minimize incivility we first have to take out the vagueness in the idea.

Can you really define incivility?

 

[marked8]

Apparently some Dems don't think it is cool to be civil openly wishing death on Sarah Palin:

YouTube - Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin (Remix)

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently some Dems don't think it is cool to be civil openly wishing death on Sarah Palin:

YouTube - Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin (Remix)

How do you know they are Democrats?

Have you seen the massive amounts of death threats against Obama, Pelosi, Frank?

Perhaps it is business as usual. The politics of hate. Something we need to fight back against - on both sides.

And, do you really think that Lennon is a good choice for background music - wouldn't something out of Ted Nuggent's catalog be better suited? /s/s/s