Why Civility Failed
The Real Problem With American Politics
Watch Your Words
I think we all need to watch our words a bit better. They can have ripple effects across society we might never know. Make one person angry and they might take it out on someone else, who takes it out on someone else. When one has a wide reach, such as a politician or actor, they really need to watch their words.
We have free speech in the United States for good reasons and we expect to know our leaders’ opinions on things so we can judge whether they are a good fit for us, but when one is in an elevated position before the public, one’s words have greater impact. People listen to and even believe what politicians say. Words can be used for good or harm.
In response to the increase in strife and harsh rhetoric in this country, a group of patriotic Americans decided to plan to get together for prayer in a park. Nancy Pelosi, elected representative in congress and majority leader at the time, went on television and told everybody that this group was a far-right neo-Nazi organization holding these prayers (9). This was in the wake of Charlottesville when violent group ANTIFA attacked alt-right and neo-Nazi groups there. Due to the labeling and subsequent threats, the prayer had to be cancelled for safety reasons. Nancy had put them in danger.
It wasn’t the first time she had caused such a stir. During the Bush years, when she was speaker of the house and third in line for the presidency, she went on television and told everybody that the Tea Party was not grassroots, but “astro-turf” and claimed they waved around swastikas (10).
Nancy is hardly alone. Harry Reid, once senate majority leader, claimed on the senate floor that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes (11). He never supplied any proof of this. Barack Obama stuck his foot in his mouth many times, claiming the police “acted stupidly” by arresting a PBS host before he knew the facts of the case (12), and claiming FOX not a news organization, but the propaganda wing of the Republican party (13). I could go on and on about quotes spoken by Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Al Grayson, Al Franken, and Al Gore (all Democrats). The election of “insulter-in-chief” Donald Trump proved that Republicans can be just as bad.
There are times that certain things have to be said, and I am not suggesting we criminalize speech. All I’m saying is that those in office, the media, academia, and other places of prestige and visibility should be more careful to watch their words – and those that do not should not keep getting elected or supported.
There are many reasons why one might be unfit to govern. One might be too uneducated or inexperienced. One might be too stupid and easily fooled into believing the wrong ideas. One might be evil, corrupt, or too power-hungry. One might simply not have the temperament, either being unable to make decisions quickly enough or too quick to make decisions before the facts are known. Finally, one might not work well with others.
To decide who to vote for, it is not only a candidate’s leadership experience and set of values that must be scrutinized. It is also how they run their campaigns. Do they needlessly make enemies? When a candidate insults his opponent – even when the insult is rooted in truth – it is not only the opponent who gets offended. It also insults the intelligence and patriotism of all those who voted for that opponent. This only makes it harder to make alliances and wield power.
Relationships are forged during campaigns. Friends and enemies are made. It is when they start to organize people around ideas and spend political capital. They are the beginning of the candidate’s term even before they win.
Just as important is the cultural message our leaders send society. When we elect rude people, it tells other candidates that rudeness will not count against them and might even be rewarded. When our leaders are rude, it tells the average citizen that rudeness is something to aspire to. They may even confuse it with strength. One might be the best, most qualified person for the job, able to do it better than any other, but if they needlessly stir up strife and division, they are unfit to be in office. When deciding who to vote for, after checking off all the issue positions you have in common, ask yourself, “Is this someone I want my children to imitate?”
The Blame Game:
Another thing to do is not play the blame game. Every time the government shuts down, Democrats blame the Republicans and Republicans blame the Democrats. Who's right? Well, logic alone dictates that since shutdowns only occur because an agreement could not be reached, and if either side got exactly what they wanted there would have been no shutdown, neither side can be held exclusively responsible. Republicans failed to agree to Democrat demands for reasons similar to why Democrats failed to agree to Republican demands. Everybody wishes there was a greater willingness to compromise, but both sides state that their own side has already compromised more than enough. Granted, there are cases where one side is clearly more to blame than the other, but it seems to me that our time would be better spent seeking solutions than playing the blame game.
On a related note, we shouldn’t blame the other guys for things we have also done. It only makes us look silly. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Sometimes this reaches truly silly levels. For Democrats to criticize then-candidate Bush for taking so long to pick a running mate in 2000 only called attention to the fact that Al Gore hadn’t picked a running mate at the time either. For Democrats to mock Sarah Palin’s short run as mayor and then governor, claiming she had too little experience, only called attention to the fact that she had more executive-branch experience than John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined.
During the 2012 election season, Democrats criticized Romney for letting his dog ride on his roof, for bullying a guy in school (Romney denies it), for being part of the “crazy” Mormon church, for having a polygamist grandfather, and for his involvement with private equity firm Bain Capital. Republicans immediately pointed out that Obama had eaten dog while in Africa, had admitted in his biography to bullying a girl in school, was part of a church led by “crazy” Jeremiah Wright, had a father who was once married to three women at once, and had people on his staff with ties to Bain Capital. It was too easy.
Later, the Obama administration directed the FBI to look into the possibility of bringing charges against those who mislead the public to doubt climate change (14). I can think of a lot of better things they could do with their time – such as bringing charges against those who mislead the public that they can keep their doctor and keep their insurance company (15), those who mislead the public on shovel-ready projects (16), those who mislead the public on whether programs exist that collect phone data on millions of Americans (17), and those who mislead the public that a mere video sparked a terrorist attack (18). It was hypocrisy taken to the extreme.
For years I heard Republicans say that Bill Clinton was too poor an example of a family man, while Obama too often inserted himself into local matters by airing his naïve opinions. Neither were especially presidential. Then I watched as some of the same Republicans swarmed to support Trump and make excuses for him when he was like Clinton and Obama put together.
When Donald Trump was elected, the hypocrisy increased HUGELY. He was accused of colluding with Russia, but during the investigation it was discovered very early that the prime piece of evidence was falsified by foreign nationals colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign (19). Democrats didn’t care anything about that – or that the very thing Trump had allegedly colluded with the Russians to get was evidence that Hillary Clinton had colluded with the DNC to steal the election from Bernie Sanders (20).
Later, it was exposed (by his own admission) that Joe Biden had threatened to withhold a loan to the country of Ukraine in order to meddle in their affairs and get a prosecutor fired who happened at the time to be investigating his son’s company (21). When Donald Trump then suggested to the new president of Ukraine that he look into the matter to determine the truth, the Democrats immediately accused Trump of doing exactly what Biden had done – threatening to withhold a loan to meddle in their internal affairs. The subsequent impeachment only brought more attention to Biden’s identical behavior that started the whole thing, yet Democrat voters seemed not to notice, let alone care.
I’m not done yet. It was people on the Hilary Clinton campaign who started the rumors about Barack Obama’s birth certificate that Trump was later criticized and called racist for when he picked up on them (22). It was Kamala Harris and other Democrats that preached vaccine distrust due to Trump’s very minor role in developing them through Operation Warp Speed (23). Once Biden was president, anyone still voicing any distrust whatsoever was accused of being a Trump supporter. I could go on and on. All politicians do is stir up trouble. Why do we keep rewarding them?
Speak The Same Language:
Some years ago, I heard a radio show host call pro-choice people “pro-abortion.” While this is true of a minority of those who call themselves pro-choice who do not want women to make an informed choice, I do not believe it is true of the majority. Many of those who call themselves pro-choice speak of their unease and concern that they might be ending a life, and many even admit that they would probably choose life themselves. Even after an email was sent to him by a listener, equating calling “pro-choice” “pro-abortion” with calling “pro-life” “anti-choice,” this radio host dug himself in deeper and continued his characterization, using an argument I didn’t really understand.
I don’t believe this type of rhetoric is helpful. When one is debating another, it behooves us to adopt their language. I myself am pro-life, and I believe the pro-choice position can be defeated on its merits, but by representing my opponents as something they claim not to be, I hurt my own argument and only make enemies when I should be trying to find common ground, such as trying to minimize the number of abortions or perhaps promoting choice in other areas. I hope people can understand this.
When speaking to those we already agree with, we can use our own language, but if we are ever to reach those who disagree, one of us must adopt the language of the other. Don’t make the other guy do all the work; take the first step.
Think The Best:
Does Mr. T promote incivility? Several years ago, I was visiting a church. After the service, a man came up to me and noticed my Mr. T shirt. This is not unusual. I’ve received a lot of positive feedback about it. He pointed out the phrase “Shut Up Fool!” and displayed some mock offense. I joked that the phrase was only directed at some people (fools) and not him. It was only after this point that I began to suspect he was serious. The conversation went downhill from there.
He seemed to have a problem with my bringing the wrong message to worship the lord with. I tried to explain who Mr. T was and why he was popular, but this guy claimed to already be quite familiar with him, and from the tone of his voice found him more than a little disgusting. His biggest problem with me seemed to be that I didn’t bring a message that edified anybody.
I don’t wear messages to edify anybody. Who does? That isn’t their purpose. I wear this particular shirt because I like Mr. T, I like his character B. A. Baracus, and I like the show the A-Team. It is meant only as a point of connection for others I meet who are also fans. In fact, it could be the starting point for fellowship, which could in time lead to edification, so I fail to see the problem.
There was no reason for this guy to take it as directed to him. It was a textual message, printed years ago, and put on hours earlier that morning, lacking any context to indicate who it might be directed at. I have to wonder, does this guy get angry at billboards for interrupting his radio show while he drives? Does he stop at stop signs and wait for them to say go? Does he read stories and assume that he is every character? Does he do what these characters are told? When he reads all that the book of Proverbs has to say about fools and foolishness, does he take it personally? This guy might need to be locked up before he hurts himself or others. He’s completely nuts.
Even though I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with Mr. T’s forthright ways, I’m not necessarily condoning his behavior either by simply wearing his image. If I happened to own one, I might one day wear a shirt with Darth Vader on it. I like the character and the story of Star Wars, but I certainly don’t condone all of Vader’s actions.
That said, I have no problem with calling fools “fools” or telling them to shut up. Sometimes it is the only right thing to do. To be clear, I don’t believe in suppressing speech, interrupting, or not giving fools a chance to rebut. Doing so only drives them to desperate acts to be heard. However, when it is my turn to speak, I may tell them that what they are saying is foolishness, is distracting us from the important issues, and they need to stop it (the whole point of this book). Even Jesus did something similar when he called the Pharisees whitewashed graves.
In the Bible, we are told to think the best of people, but many of us think the worst. This applies to the realm of politics as well. Sarah Palin puts up a website with target symbols over certain districts with certain representatives she wants people to defeat at the ballot box and people assume she wants people to kill them. Muslims want to put up a mosque in New York and people assume that they are planning to use it to “gloat” over their “victory” over us on 9-11. CNN asks some unusual questions about chicken wings in the Republican debate and certain radio personalities assume that any candidate answering them disgraced the democratic process and isn’t truly on our side. Worse, if they laughed at the questions instead of becoming angry at the distraction, people assume they have a screw loose upstairs. I for one will never become angry simply because others want me to be. I will always try to think well of people until their offense becomes so clear that I have no choice but to think poorly of them.
What do you think of when you see someone with wolf images on their shirt? Beautiful and interesting creatures important to the ecological balance – or bloodthirsty killing machines? What do you think of when you see someone with star images on their shirt? Beautiful and interesting sources of illumination – or deadly gravitational traps filled with superhot, radiation-spewing plasma? What do you think of when you see someone with an image of the cross on their shirt? A symbol of hope for salvation from our sins and eternal death – or ancient Roman execution equipment? Why think the worst?
So, which promotes more incivility? Mr. T or the suppression of Mr. T? It seems that everybody these days is complaining about how uncivil the political discourse in America has become, but often, those examples of incivility that they point out and try to suppress, are really only misunderstood to be uncivil. Sarah Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” comment (24) is one of them. Blaming her and the tone of the right in general for the actions of Jared Loughner (who shot Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others) (25) is actually promoting more incivility than if Sarah were simply ignored. The reason is that there are a lot of people that sympathize with Sarah that didn’t take her comment the same way and perhaps even used it themselves. When they hear others calling Sarah uncivil, they also take it as an attack on themselves. Since Sarah’s comments could reasonably be considered innocent, it is best to take them that way.
Likewise, protesting the building of the “ground zero” mosque is actually promoting more incivility than if it were simply ignored. The reason is that a lot of Muslims (if not all of them) probably have reasons other than “gloating” to support it, and they resent being accused of something they probably aren’t guilty of. Think the best of others.
Check Your Bias
Thinking the worst of others even seems to feed back into our perceptions to give us reasons to think bad of them in the first place.
Kamala is an unusual name in the United States. Few have any familiarity with it. Thus, it is perfectly excusable that some might pronounce it “camel-uh” rather than “kah-mah-lah.” It’s not racism. Yet, this is exactly what Kamala Harris accused Tucker Carlson of when he mispronounced it. Later, Tucker responded by playing a clip of Kamala speaking her own name, claiming she had said it the same way! Was she racist too? Against herself? The problem is that I listened very carefully to the tape myself and did not hear it the way Tucker claims to (26). Is it possible that Tucker’s ears were biased to find an excuse to discredit someone who had insulted him? I don’t like Kamala either, but I just don’t hear the tape the same way.
A familiar phenomenon might have occurred to jumpstart the “Let’s Go Brandon” meme. Did the reporter really mishear? Or was she deliberately trying to bias the ears of the viewers at home? I don’t know and neither do you. Check your bias.
Blaming The Wrong People:
We should generally avoid playing the blame game, but if we are going to blame somebody, it is important that we blame those actually responsible.
Several years ago, some guy burned a Koran in protest. Then there were riots. Both Republicans (27) and Democrats (28) blamed the book-burner for putting our troops in further danger by provoking Muslims. The question nobody seems to be asking is: who provoked this guy into doing the burning? Past rioters? If it makes sense to blame someone other than the rioters for rioting, doesn’t it make sense to blame someone other than the burner for burning?
It seems to me that it only makes sense to blame those actually involved in the action. In the West we draw cartoons and burn books – offensive perhaps, but not harmful. If the media hadn’t broadcast these things, and nobody knew they happened, the world would not change. Radical Muslims, on the other hand, riot, make bombs, and hurt innocent people.
Everybody wants to blame somebody else than the actual actors. The Tea Parties were blamed for radicalizing Jared Loughner and Joe Stack. Those placing a mosque near ground zero (just exercising their freedom of religion) were blamed for inciting anger as well. If Americans riot and start doing things like, I don’t know, burning the Koran or shooting Republicans at a baseball game, are the Muslims to blame?
Fighting Fire with Fire:
Fire cannot be fought with fire; it takes water. Likewise, terrorism that targets civilians cannot be fought with civilian-targeted terrorism, racial discrimination cannot be fought by discrimination on the basis of race, bullying by becoming a bully, and political correctness cannot be fought by inventing your own version of political correctness.
In the newspapers I read about a man who was caught shooting teenagers at random, terrorizing whole communities. His supposed motivation? The American military had been killing Muslims overseas and he felt it was his duty to avenge them. I understand the desire for vengeance, but it only makes sense when brought against those guilty of the original act we are taking vengeance for. This man did not shoot soldiers or even government officials, but teenagers who could not even vote and for all he knew agreed with his views. His acts only added to the numbers killed without stopping those doing the killing.
I know that blacks, Hispanics, the Irish, the Jews, Catholics, Mormons, gays, lesbians, and other minorities have been discriminated against in the past. Some members of each of these groups have been abused in some way. While this might justify going after those doing the abuse, it does not justify going after every member of the same group (however “group” is defined) as the abuser – many of which are not only innocent of any wrongdoing, but have fought against discrimination themselves. Hiring and admissions quotas to equalize past wrongs only serve to pit people against each other and reawaken the fires of hatred. So-called “reparations” are especially disgusting. Slavery has been over for over a century. Most whites in America today are descended from immigrants who never owned slaves. Many minorities are descended from immigrants who willingly moved to America in spite of its flaws. To take hard-earned money today from those who were never slaveholders and give it to those who were never slaves is the very definition of evil.
Political correctness is tearing the country apart. It is getting harder all the time to operate in the public sphere without somebody pretending to be offended over something you have done or said and threatening to organize a boycott of your business. Product releases and events have been cancelled, people have been fired, harassed, and threatened with violence over the most harmless gestures obviously made in ignorance – gestures common among large segments of the population who then feel just as threatened.
We not only have to carefully sift through our words and watch everything we say for fear it could be misinterpreted as racist, but even when we have done all we can and nothing we say is even remotely race-related, we can still get into trouble. Even after accounting for the silliest interpretations of our words, it is always possible that something that never even occurred to us might be picked up on by the PC police. This is no way to live.
Everyone over the age of six should know what a black hole is. They are in the news, video games, and every space travel show. Black holes are black because their gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Just like Las Vegas, what goes in a black hole stays in a black hole. They are formed from collapsed stars. They have no racial connotations whatsoever. So why is it, that when a local politician calls a certain government program a black hole that money goes into with no results coming out, he is accused of racism? When the accuser was exposed as a fool, instead of backing off, he dug himself in deeper by implying that “black market” and “black sheep” were also racist (29). There is no possibility of having a serious conversation with these people, and if you can’t have a serious conversation with them, you can’t run a government with them. That these people manage to get elected to office is terrifying.
A few years back there was a science fiction convention. Food was necessary, and those in charge settled on a favorite among Mexican-Americans and non-Mexican-Americans alike: Mexican food. No reasonable person would be offended. Somebody with more creativity than sense made the non-existent connection between Mexican aliens and space aliens and started trouble. (30) Much to my disappointment, the event organizers apologized to the bullies, thus encouraging them to use the same tactics elsewhere and keep us all on edge. Stop apologizing!
Another time, an intruder slipped past the Secret Service and got into the White House. A political cartoonist poked fun at their incompetence, drawing a picture of Obama brushing his teeth and a speech bubble coming from behind the shower curtain asking him if he had tried the new watermelon-flavored toothpaste. The perpetually offended morons accused the cartoonist of racism by associating watermelon and a black man (Obama). The cartoonist went public, explaining that he had no idea that watermelon and ethnicity had any connection (neither did I) and that he chose the toothpaste flavor because he and his daughter had recently discovered it and used it (31). Inexplicably, he apologized anyways.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any sillier, I discovered that the “OK” sign was being called racist. In the United States, this is possibly the most well-known and widely used sign. Everyone knows it means “okay.” I have also seen similar hand shapes used to represent the number three, the number zero, and in conjunction with another hand doing its own sign to represent intercourse. Nobody actually thinks this is racist. They are only pretending to be offended.
After decades of the Democrats and their allies providing us with PC nonsense, the right has finally learned how to do the same. Just as some people incapable of reasoned dialogue shout “racist!” at everything for purely political reasons, other people have begun shouting “unpatriotic!” in the same way.
A while back, there were football players who chose to bring attention to an issue we should all care about by kneeling during the national anthem at football games. They were not disruptive or disrespectful. They did not shut down the game. They did not shout loudly so others could not hear the music. They did not interfere with anyone else’s right to sit, stand, or kneel. I was always taught in school that what makes this country worthy of respect is that it recognizes our right to be ourselves and not to conform with artificial standards of behavior imposed from above and I have always found group singing awkward and creepy. Who the Hell decided for everyone else that standing shows respect and kneeling does not? Are those who kneel during prayer disrespecting God? True patriots would respect those kneeling even if they disagreed with some of their positions on the issues. What happened is that millions of pretend patriot bullies demanded that the kneeling players be removed from the NFL. It was political correctness by another name.
When a flag was painted on a bridge and the town eventually washed off the graffiti, people complained that the town government hated America. This was PC too.
When politicians began wearing flag lapel pins and then-candidate Barack Obama was seen without one, people asked him why. It was a stupid question. Why not ask you or me the same thing? Granted, his response was even stupider (32), but it was a question that should never have been asked. This was PC too.
When Trump placed a flagpole on his golf course in violation of the zoning ordinance height restriction and he was told to replace it with a shorter one, he accused Palm Beach of being anti-American (33). Trump has always been a trouble-maker. This was PC too.
Lately, I have even heard many people (including Trump) state that they wish flag-burning was illegal (34). Which is worse? That people make a political point by burning a piece of cloth that they own? Or that agents of the state harass or imprison them for exercising their first-amendment rights? I have even seen some so-called patriots take the law into their own hands and chase flag-burners down. I was always taught in school that what makes this country worthy of honor is the fact that it allows people to dishonor it. Any country that would make it a crime to do what hurts no one else is a country that needs its flag burned. I had thought that these issues were settled long before I was born. Now I no longer recognize my country. What will we bring back next? Jim Crow? Slavery? Taking offense over purely harmless activities is usually something the left does, but in this case it is the right doing it. Is there even a difference anymore? Was there ever a difference?
When Target announced it was merging its boy toy section and girl toy section under a single department, thousands of angry, self-described Christians objected, claiming the chain was pushing an agenda to erase all distinctions between males and females and thus hasten the collapse of civilization. I agree that for civilization to survive that some sex distinctions must be maintained, but what should they be? Cultures evolve all the time. One store mixing all its toys together hardly signals the fall of the West. It is the responsibility of the parents to buy appropriate toys. If they had never separated its toys to begin with, would anyone have cared? If toys should be segregated, why not demand that boy toys and girl toys be sold in separate stores? Such lunacy! Those in the religious right are just a different kind of liberal!
People want a safe environment to live and work in, but they are eager to deny the same to others. Until we can learn to stop making things worse, we won’t be able to learn how to make things better. Watch your words.
We have free speech in the United States for good reasons and we expect to know our leaders’ opinions on things so we can judge whether they are a good fit for us, but when one is in an elevated position before the public, one’s words have greater impact. People listen to and even believe what politicians say. Words can be used for good or harm.
In response to the increase in strife and harsh rhetoric in this country, a group of patriotic Americans decided to plan to get together for prayer in a park. Nancy Pelosi, elected representative in congress and majority leader at the time, went on television and told everybody that this group was a far-right neo-Nazi organization holding these prayers (9). This was in the wake of Charlottesville when violent group ANTIFA attacked alt-right and neo-Nazi groups there. Due to the labeling and subsequent threats, the prayer had to be cancelled for safety reasons. Nancy had put them in danger.
It wasn’t the first time she had caused such a stir. During the Bush years, when she was speaker of the house and third in line for the presidency, she went on television and told everybody that the Tea Party was not grassroots, but “astro-turf” and claimed they waved around swastikas (10).
Nancy is hardly alone. Harry Reid, once senate majority leader, claimed on the senate floor that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes (11). He never supplied any proof of this. Barack Obama stuck his foot in his mouth many times, claiming the police “acted stupidly” by arresting a PBS host before he knew the facts of the case (12), and claiming FOX not a news organization, but the propaganda wing of the Republican party (13). I could go on and on about quotes spoken by Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Al Grayson, Al Franken, and Al Gore (all Democrats). The election of “insulter-in-chief” Donald Trump proved that Republicans can be just as bad.
There are times that certain things have to be said, and I am not suggesting we criminalize speech. All I’m saying is that those in office, the media, academia, and other places of prestige and visibility should be more careful to watch their words – and those that do not should not keep getting elected or supported.
There are many reasons why one might be unfit to govern. One might be too uneducated or inexperienced. One might be too stupid and easily fooled into believing the wrong ideas. One might be evil, corrupt, or too power-hungry. One might simply not have the temperament, either being unable to make decisions quickly enough or too quick to make decisions before the facts are known. Finally, one might not work well with others.
To decide who to vote for, it is not only a candidate’s leadership experience and set of values that must be scrutinized. It is also how they run their campaigns. Do they needlessly make enemies? When a candidate insults his opponent – even when the insult is rooted in truth – it is not only the opponent who gets offended. It also insults the intelligence and patriotism of all those who voted for that opponent. This only makes it harder to make alliances and wield power.
Relationships are forged during campaigns. Friends and enemies are made. It is when they start to organize people around ideas and spend political capital. They are the beginning of the candidate’s term even before they win.
Just as important is the cultural message our leaders send society. When we elect rude people, it tells other candidates that rudeness will not count against them and might even be rewarded. When our leaders are rude, it tells the average citizen that rudeness is something to aspire to. They may even confuse it with strength. One might be the best, most qualified person for the job, able to do it better than any other, but if they needlessly stir up strife and division, they are unfit to be in office. When deciding who to vote for, after checking off all the issue positions you have in common, ask yourself, “Is this someone I want my children to imitate?”
The Blame Game:
Another thing to do is not play the blame game. Every time the government shuts down, Democrats blame the Republicans and Republicans blame the Democrats. Who's right? Well, logic alone dictates that since shutdowns only occur because an agreement could not be reached, and if either side got exactly what they wanted there would have been no shutdown, neither side can be held exclusively responsible. Republicans failed to agree to Democrat demands for reasons similar to why Democrats failed to agree to Republican demands. Everybody wishes there was a greater willingness to compromise, but both sides state that their own side has already compromised more than enough. Granted, there are cases where one side is clearly more to blame than the other, but it seems to me that our time would be better spent seeking solutions than playing the blame game.
On a related note, we shouldn’t blame the other guys for things we have also done. It only makes us look silly. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Sometimes this reaches truly silly levels. For Democrats to criticize then-candidate Bush for taking so long to pick a running mate in 2000 only called attention to the fact that Al Gore hadn’t picked a running mate at the time either. For Democrats to mock Sarah Palin’s short run as mayor and then governor, claiming she had too little experience, only called attention to the fact that she had more executive-branch experience than John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined.
During the 2012 election season, Democrats criticized Romney for letting his dog ride on his roof, for bullying a guy in school (Romney denies it), for being part of the “crazy” Mormon church, for having a polygamist grandfather, and for his involvement with private equity firm Bain Capital. Republicans immediately pointed out that Obama had eaten dog while in Africa, had admitted in his biography to bullying a girl in school, was part of a church led by “crazy” Jeremiah Wright, had a father who was once married to three women at once, and had people on his staff with ties to Bain Capital. It was too easy.
Later, the Obama administration directed the FBI to look into the possibility of bringing charges against those who mislead the public to doubt climate change (14). I can think of a lot of better things they could do with their time – such as bringing charges against those who mislead the public that they can keep their doctor and keep their insurance company (15), those who mislead the public on shovel-ready projects (16), those who mislead the public on whether programs exist that collect phone data on millions of Americans (17), and those who mislead the public that a mere video sparked a terrorist attack (18). It was hypocrisy taken to the extreme.
For years I heard Republicans say that Bill Clinton was too poor an example of a family man, while Obama too often inserted himself into local matters by airing his naïve opinions. Neither were especially presidential. Then I watched as some of the same Republicans swarmed to support Trump and make excuses for him when he was like Clinton and Obama put together.
When Donald Trump was elected, the hypocrisy increased HUGELY. He was accused of colluding with Russia, but during the investigation it was discovered very early that the prime piece of evidence was falsified by foreign nationals colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign (19). Democrats didn’t care anything about that – or that the very thing Trump had allegedly colluded with the Russians to get was evidence that Hillary Clinton had colluded with the DNC to steal the election from Bernie Sanders (20).
Later, it was exposed (by his own admission) that Joe Biden had threatened to withhold a loan to the country of Ukraine in order to meddle in their affairs and get a prosecutor fired who happened at the time to be investigating his son’s company (21). When Donald Trump then suggested to the new president of Ukraine that he look into the matter to determine the truth, the Democrats immediately accused Trump of doing exactly what Biden had done – threatening to withhold a loan to meddle in their internal affairs. The subsequent impeachment only brought more attention to Biden’s identical behavior that started the whole thing, yet Democrat voters seemed not to notice, let alone care.
I’m not done yet. It was people on the Hilary Clinton campaign who started the rumors about Barack Obama’s birth certificate that Trump was later criticized and called racist for when he picked up on them (22). It was Kamala Harris and other Democrats that preached vaccine distrust due to Trump’s very minor role in developing them through Operation Warp Speed (23). Once Biden was president, anyone still voicing any distrust whatsoever was accused of being a Trump supporter. I could go on and on. All politicians do is stir up trouble. Why do we keep rewarding them?
Speak The Same Language:
Some years ago, I heard a radio show host call pro-choice people “pro-abortion.” While this is true of a minority of those who call themselves pro-choice who do not want women to make an informed choice, I do not believe it is true of the majority. Many of those who call themselves pro-choice speak of their unease and concern that they might be ending a life, and many even admit that they would probably choose life themselves. Even after an email was sent to him by a listener, equating calling “pro-choice” “pro-abortion” with calling “pro-life” “anti-choice,” this radio host dug himself in deeper and continued his characterization, using an argument I didn’t really understand.
I don’t believe this type of rhetoric is helpful. When one is debating another, it behooves us to adopt their language. I myself am pro-life, and I believe the pro-choice position can be defeated on its merits, but by representing my opponents as something they claim not to be, I hurt my own argument and only make enemies when I should be trying to find common ground, such as trying to minimize the number of abortions or perhaps promoting choice in other areas. I hope people can understand this.
When speaking to those we already agree with, we can use our own language, but if we are ever to reach those who disagree, one of us must adopt the language of the other. Don’t make the other guy do all the work; take the first step.
Think The Best:
Does Mr. T promote incivility? Several years ago, I was visiting a church. After the service, a man came up to me and noticed my Mr. T shirt. This is not unusual. I’ve received a lot of positive feedback about it. He pointed out the phrase “Shut Up Fool!” and displayed some mock offense. I joked that the phrase was only directed at some people (fools) and not him. It was only after this point that I began to suspect he was serious. The conversation went downhill from there.
He seemed to have a problem with my bringing the wrong message to worship the lord with. I tried to explain who Mr. T was and why he was popular, but this guy claimed to already be quite familiar with him, and from the tone of his voice found him more than a little disgusting. His biggest problem with me seemed to be that I didn’t bring a message that edified anybody.
I don’t wear messages to edify anybody. Who does? That isn’t their purpose. I wear this particular shirt because I like Mr. T, I like his character B. A. Baracus, and I like the show the A-Team. It is meant only as a point of connection for others I meet who are also fans. In fact, it could be the starting point for fellowship, which could in time lead to edification, so I fail to see the problem.
There was no reason for this guy to take it as directed to him. It was a textual message, printed years ago, and put on hours earlier that morning, lacking any context to indicate who it might be directed at. I have to wonder, does this guy get angry at billboards for interrupting his radio show while he drives? Does he stop at stop signs and wait for them to say go? Does he read stories and assume that he is every character? Does he do what these characters are told? When he reads all that the book of Proverbs has to say about fools and foolishness, does he take it personally? This guy might need to be locked up before he hurts himself or others. He’s completely nuts.
Even though I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with Mr. T’s forthright ways, I’m not necessarily condoning his behavior either by simply wearing his image. If I happened to own one, I might one day wear a shirt with Darth Vader on it. I like the character and the story of Star Wars, but I certainly don’t condone all of Vader’s actions.
That said, I have no problem with calling fools “fools” or telling them to shut up. Sometimes it is the only right thing to do. To be clear, I don’t believe in suppressing speech, interrupting, or not giving fools a chance to rebut. Doing so only drives them to desperate acts to be heard. However, when it is my turn to speak, I may tell them that what they are saying is foolishness, is distracting us from the important issues, and they need to stop it (the whole point of this book). Even Jesus did something similar when he called the Pharisees whitewashed graves.
In the Bible, we are told to think the best of people, but many of us think the worst. This applies to the realm of politics as well. Sarah Palin puts up a website with target symbols over certain districts with certain representatives she wants people to defeat at the ballot box and people assume she wants people to kill them. Muslims want to put up a mosque in New York and people assume that they are planning to use it to “gloat” over their “victory” over us on 9-11. CNN asks some unusual questions about chicken wings in the Republican debate and certain radio personalities assume that any candidate answering them disgraced the democratic process and isn’t truly on our side. Worse, if they laughed at the questions instead of becoming angry at the distraction, people assume they have a screw loose upstairs. I for one will never become angry simply because others want me to be. I will always try to think well of people until their offense becomes so clear that I have no choice but to think poorly of them.
What do you think of when you see someone with wolf images on their shirt? Beautiful and interesting creatures important to the ecological balance – or bloodthirsty killing machines? What do you think of when you see someone with star images on their shirt? Beautiful and interesting sources of illumination – or deadly gravitational traps filled with superhot, radiation-spewing plasma? What do you think of when you see someone with an image of the cross on their shirt? A symbol of hope for salvation from our sins and eternal death – or ancient Roman execution equipment? Why think the worst?
So, which promotes more incivility? Mr. T or the suppression of Mr. T? It seems that everybody these days is complaining about how uncivil the political discourse in America has become, but often, those examples of incivility that they point out and try to suppress, are really only misunderstood to be uncivil. Sarah Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” comment (24) is one of them. Blaming her and the tone of the right in general for the actions of Jared Loughner (who shot Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others) (25) is actually promoting more incivility than if Sarah were simply ignored. The reason is that there are a lot of people that sympathize with Sarah that didn’t take her comment the same way and perhaps even used it themselves. When they hear others calling Sarah uncivil, they also take it as an attack on themselves. Since Sarah’s comments could reasonably be considered innocent, it is best to take them that way.
Likewise, protesting the building of the “ground zero” mosque is actually promoting more incivility than if it were simply ignored. The reason is that a lot of Muslims (if not all of them) probably have reasons other than “gloating” to support it, and they resent being accused of something they probably aren’t guilty of. Think the best of others.
Check Your Bias
Thinking the worst of others even seems to feed back into our perceptions to give us reasons to think bad of them in the first place.
Kamala is an unusual name in the United States. Few have any familiarity with it. Thus, it is perfectly excusable that some might pronounce it “camel-uh” rather than “kah-mah-lah.” It’s not racism. Yet, this is exactly what Kamala Harris accused Tucker Carlson of when he mispronounced it. Later, Tucker responded by playing a clip of Kamala speaking her own name, claiming she had said it the same way! Was she racist too? Against herself? The problem is that I listened very carefully to the tape myself and did not hear it the way Tucker claims to (26). Is it possible that Tucker’s ears were biased to find an excuse to discredit someone who had insulted him? I don’t like Kamala either, but I just don’t hear the tape the same way.
A familiar phenomenon might have occurred to jumpstart the “Let’s Go Brandon” meme. Did the reporter really mishear? Or was she deliberately trying to bias the ears of the viewers at home? I don’t know and neither do you. Check your bias.
Blaming The Wrong People:
We should generally avoid playing the blame game, but if we are going to blame somebody, it is important that we blame those actually responsible.
Several years ago, some guy burned a Koran in protest. Then there were riots. Both Republicans (27) and Democrats (28) blamed the book-burner for putting our troops in further danger by provoking Muslims. The question nobody seems to be asking is: who provoked this guy into doing the burning? Past rioters? If it makes sense to blame someone other than the rioters for rioting, doesn’t it make sense to blame someone other than the burner for burning?
It seems to me that it only makes sense to blame those actually involved in the action. In the West we draw cartoons and burn books – offensive perhaps, but not harmful. If the media hadn’t broadcast these things, and nobody knew they happened, the world would not change. Radical Muslims, on the other hand, riot, make bombs, and hurt innocent people.
Everybody wants to blame somebody else than the actual actors. The Tea Parties were blamed for radicalizing Jared Loughner and Joe Stack. Those placing a mosque near ground zero (just exercising their freedom of religion) were blamed for inciting anger as well. If Americans riot and start doing things like, I don’t know, burning the Koran or shooting Republicans at a baseball game, are the Muslims to blame?
Fighting Fire with Fire:
Fire cannot be fought with fire; it takes water. Likewise, terrorism that targets civilians cannot be fought with civilian-targeted terrorism, racial discrimination cannot be fought by discrimination on the basis of race, bullying by becoming a bully, and political correctness cannot be fought by inventing your own version of political correctness.
In the newspapers I read about a man who was caught shooting teenagers at random, terrorizing whole communities. His supposed motivation? The American military had been killing Muslims overseas and he felt it was his duty to avenge them. I understand the desire for vengeance, but it only makes sense when brought against those guilty of the original act we are taking vengeance for. This man did not shoot soldiers or even government officials, but teenagers who could not even vote and for all he knew agreed with his views. His acts only added to the numbers killed without stopping those doing the killing.
I know that blacks, Hispanics, the Irish, the Jews, Catholics, Mormons, gays, lesbians, and other minorities have been discriminated against in the past. Some members of each of these groups have been abused in some way. While this might justify going after those doing the abuse, it does not justify going after every member of the same group (however “group” is defined) as the abuser – many of which are not only innocent of any wrongdoing, but have fought against discrimination themselves. Hiring and admissions quotas to equalize past wrongs only serve to pit people against each other and reawaken the fires of hatred. So-called “reparations” are especially disgusting. Slavery has been over for over a century. Most whites in America today are descended from immigrants who never owned slaves. Many minorities are descended from immigrants who willingly moved to America in spite of its flaws. To take hard-earned money today from those who were never slaveholders and give it to those who were never slaves is the very definition of evil.
Political correctness is tearing the country apart. It is getting harder all the time to operate in the public sphere without somebody pretending to be offended over something you have done or said and threatening to organize a boycott of your business. Product releases and events have been cancelled, people have been fired, harassed, and threatened with violence over the most harmless gestures obviously made in ignorance – gestures common among large segments of the population who then feel just as threatened.
We not only have to carefully sift through our words and watch everything we say for fear it could be misinterpreted as racist, but even when we have done all we can and nothing we say is even remotely race-related, we can still get into trouble. Even after accounting for the silliest interpretations of our words, it is always possible that something that never even occurred to us might be picked up on by the PC police. This is no way to live.
Everyone over the age of six should know what a black hole is. They are in the news, video games, and every space travel show. Black holes are black because their gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Just like Las Vegas, what goes in a black hole stays in a black hole. They are formed from collapsed stars. They have no racial connotations whatsoever. So why is it, that when a local politician calls a certain government program a black hole that money goes into with no results coming out, he is accused of racism? When the accuser was exposed as a fool, instead of backing off, he dug himself in deeper by implying that “black market” and “black sheep” were also racist (29). There is no possibility of having a serious conversation with these people, and if you can’t have a serious conversation with them, you can’t run a government with them. That these people manage to get elected to office is terrifying.
A few years back there was a science fiction convention. Food was necessary, and those in charge settled on a favorite among Mexican-Americans and non-Mexican-Americans alike: Mexican food. No reasonable person would be offended. Somebody with more creativity than sense made the non-existent connection between Mexican aliens and space aliens and started trouble. (30) Much to my disappointment, the event organizers apologized to the bullies, thus encouraging them to use the same tactics elsewhere and keep us all on edge. Stop apologizing!
Another time, an intruder slipped past the Secret Service and got into the White House. A political cartoonist poked fun at their incompetence, drawing a picture of Obama brushing his teeth and a speech bubble coming from behind the shower curtain asking him if he had tried the new watermelon-flavored toothpaste. The perpetually offended morons accused the cartoonist of racism by associating watermelon and a black man (Obama). The cartoonist went public, explaining that he had no idea that watermelon and ethnicity had any connection (neither did I) and that he chose the toothpaste flavor because he and his daughter had recently discovered it and used it (31). Inexplicably, he apologized anyways.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any sillier, I discovered that the “OK” sign was being called racist. In the United States, this is possibly the most well-known and widely used sign. Everyone knows it means “okay.” I have also seen similar hand shapes used to represent the number three, the number zero, and in conjunction with another hand doing its own sign to represent intercourse. Nobody actually thinks this is racist. They are only pretending to be offended.
After decades of the Democrats and their allies providing us with PC nonsense, the right has finally learned how to do the same. Just as some people incapable of reasoned dialogue shout “racist!” at everything for purely political reasons, other people have begun shouting “unpatriotic!” in the same way.
A while back, there were football players who chose to bring attention to an issue we should all care about by kneeling during the national anthem at football games. They were not disruptive or disrespectful. They did not shut down the game. They did not shout loudly so others could not hear the music. They did not interfere with anyone else’s right to sit, stand, or kneel. I was always taught in school that what makes this country worthy of respect is that it recognizes our right to be ourselves and not to conform with artificial standards of behavior imposed from above and I have always found group singing awkward and creepy. Who the Hell decided for everyone else that standing shows respect and kneeling does not? Are those who kneel during prayer disrespecting God? True patriots would respect those kneeling even if they disagreed with some of their positions on the issues. What happened is that millions of pretend patriot bullies demanded that the kneeling players be removed from the NFL. It was political correctness by another name.
When a flag was painted on a bridge and the town eventually washed off the graffiti, people complained that the town government hated America. This was PC too.
When politicians began wearing flag lapel pins and then-candidate Barack Obama was seen without one, people asked him why. It was a stupid question. Why not ask you or me the same thing? Granted, his response was even stupider (32), but it was a question that should never have been asked. This was PC too.
When Trump placed a flagpole on his golf course in violation of the zoning ordinance height restriction and he was told to replace it with a shorter one, he accused Palm Beach of being anti-American (33). Trump has always been a trouble-maker. This was PC too.
Lately, I have even heard many people (including Trump) state that they wish flag-burning was illegal (34). Which is worse? That people make a political point by burning a piece of cloth that they own? Or that agents of the state harass or imprison them for exercising their first-amendment rights? I have even seen some so-called patriots take the law into their own hands and chase flag-burners down. I was always taught in school that what makes this country worthy of honor is the fact that it allows people to dishonor it. Any country that would make it a crime to do what hurts no one else is a country that needs its flag burned. I had thought that these issues were settled long before I was born. Now I no longer recognize my country. What will we bring back next? Jim Crow? Slavery? Taking offense over purely harmless activities is usually something the left does, but in this case it is the right doing it. Is there even a difference anymore? Was there ever a difference?
When Target announced it was merging its boy toy section and girl toy section under a single department, thousands of angry, self-described Christians objected, claiming the chain was pushing an agenda to erase all distinctions between males and females and thus hasten the collapse of civilization. I agree that for civilization to survive that some sex distinctions must be maintained, but what should they be? Cultures evolve all the time. One store mixing all its toys together hardly signals the fall of the West. It is the responsibility of the parents to buy appropriate toys. If they had never separated its toys to begin with, would anyone have cared? If toys should be segregated, why not demand that boy toys and girl toys be sold in separate stores? Such lunacy! Those in the religious right are just a different kind of liberal!
People want a safe environment to live and work in, but they are eager to deny the same to others. Until we can learn to stop making things worse, we won’t be able to learn how to make things better. Watch your words.