Civility: wow, everybody's concerned about it now! Here's our president a couple of days ago:
The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning -- since, after all, why should we listen to a "fascist," or a "socialist," or a "right-wing nut," or a left-wing nut"? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.
Ahem! Would you like to talk about blogs, Mr. President? If so, give me a call. I'll be in DC this summer.
This civility movement is coming none too soon, as a bunch of parents have just figured out that their kids are using the Internetz (specifically Formspring) to insult each other mercilessly:
"The comments are all gross and sexual," the mother said. "And yet, of course, this is coming from her friends. I wish I could just erase it, but all of her friends are online, and so much of their social interaction is online that I don't think I could just take away her Internet access. But I do think this whole online social media thing is a huge experiment on our children."
Yes, it's awful. But I don't understand why youthful cruelty surprises parents so much. Surely we all remember how amoral and cruel teenagers can be, especially when given the opportunity to act anonymously. (If you don't, then go watch Mean Girls right now.)
If only that bastion of decorum, the Supreme Court, could give us guidance. . .
"This is a historic victory for free speech, and I wouldn't be surprised if, a hundred years from now, the hallowed walls of this court bear an inscription taken from the eloquent decision handed down today," lead defense attorney Carl Huddleston said. "Particularly the phrase 'That which erodes human rights serves to erode humanity, fuckface.'"
Wait - didn't Physioprof originate that phrase? Is Physioprof really a member of the Supreme Court? Which one?
In all seriousness, whatever you do, don't show that Onion article to Karl Rove, who is so uptight that he thinks that words like "cynical and deceptive", "bogus", "irresponsible", and "bearing false witness" are, I kid you not, "coarse" and "uncivil". Take that, Obama, you potty-mouthed POTUS! Karl Rove has never insulted anyone with language that bad!
Dude. Karl Rove needs to get on the Internetz and read some blogs--or better yet, join Formspring and watch Mean Girls. I'm just sayin'.
Have a very civil weekend, everybody.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Karl Rove objects to the term "bearing false witness"? I wonder if he's read the Bible, or is it too uncivil for him?
All I can say, Emily, is that I've heard all those "begats" probably involved sex.
The review by Halperin you that linked to is as thin and watery as Rove's morals. It certainly explains the demise of the news weekly magazine format if that an example of what an editor at large and senior (senile perhaps?) political analyst produces. The memoir may be "entertaining and enlightening," but is any of it true? Mr. Rove is not particularly known for his plain spoken truthfulness, so it would be nice if the reviewer determined whether Karl chose to continue to tread that path or actually brings substance and factual observations to the table. I suspect that since the memoir is described as containing "an acid retaliation against a covey of prominent Democrats," he chose the former tack.
What was it O.W. Holmes said? "I like taxes. With them I buy civilization." Obviously. Rove prefers anarchy and chaos.
Onkel Bob, I actually did look for a more thorough review. But I don't own a copy of Rove's book (shock) and that review was one of the few that actually quoted the book. Since it's a lighthearted post, I wasn't willing to spend more than ten minutes looking for a better link, but you're welcome to go right ahead on your own time. I'm not sure if you're cross with me that I posted a review that is too anti-Rove or too pro-Rove, but if you have a different review you prefer or have read his book yourself, you are more than welcome to link or quote in the comments, as always. :)
Socialist is "over the top rhetoric" now ? Wow between this and the strange idea that liberal is an insult UK politics must look pretty weird from the US (not that it doesn't from here just for different reasons).
Reading Rove's piece in the WSJ, I found myself puzzled by one thing.
Mr. Obama can give friendly counsel to the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who authorized a fund-raising email calling conservatives "reptiles" and "fire-breathing tea party nut jobs."
Time after time, Rove seems to be railing against perfectly innocuous statements of scientific fact. What is his problem?