Civilized People Can Be Rude
October 23, 2009 · By Christopher Northcott
Jonathan has provided some very engaging commentary here and here. Following up on this theme of civility and objectivity in journalistic reporting, Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece over at National Review Online:
… American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.
And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.
The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.
In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”
On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.
Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?
Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.
Turning back to the interview with Conor Friedersdorf from the other thread, the following is an excerpt that raises significant questions.
Unfortunately, there is also a lot of dreck that harms public discourse. I’d never want to be the arbiter drawing a definitive boundary between folks who add to the conversation and those who take away from it. That line is impossible for anyone to consistently and reliably discern. But it is possible to identify folks whose transgressions are so frequent, blatant and influential that one must either oppose them or stay silent as they corrode our polity’s primary means of testing ideas and deciding among them. I think it is important that this opposition is grounded in substantive arguments, that it avoids ad hominem attacks, that it is rigorous, and that it is intellectually honest.
As I argue in the other thread, ad hominem argument, be it rude or funny, is often the only way to check intellectual dishonesty at the door. Often it is necessary to take a swipe at people who are unwilling to face the truth. A well placed insult forces them to challenge why what you are calling them isn’t true, to make a come back, the result being that they either face the truth and the conversation continues, no doubt robustly, or they leave—good riddance. It is individuals of genuine civility who can take a hit and keep on coming; re: Juan Williams.
I’m not arguing that conservatives benefit from “echo chambers.” Hardly! I’m making the point that in any “political discourse” there are likely to be intellectual swindlers, however polite and well-intentioned, that want to narrow the choices we face into one way, THEIR way, whatever the cost. Conservatives are seeking to provide people with “A Choice, Not An Echo” and doing so will often infuriate their opponents (Many thanks, once again, to Kathy Shaidle for the link.), as we see now with the current White House attacks on Fox news.
To engage in democratic politics, it is best if one comes with some principles, broad shoulders, a quick wit, and the capacity to laugh at oneself.
This is all complete nonsense – sensible-sounding nonsense, but nonsense all the same.
A) it ignores the tone and substance of much of the loudest “criticism” being aimed at Obama (who, by the way, I happen to consider fairly conservative)
B) it ignores the numerous attacks on and freeze-outs of certain media outlets made by the Bush administration – not making a “they did it, too” argument, just pointing out the laughable hypocrisy
C) It also ignores the substance of the WH’s complaints against FOX: not that it is rude, but that it is an arm of the Republican Party. Who runs FOX news?
Here’s a single fact that shows the holes in this whole “controversy”: MoveOn ran an online contest for web ads. One entry compared Bush to Hitler. The entry was removed after complaints. MoveOn is still considered “that place where they compared Bush to HITLER!!!”
Teabaggers and the like, and some of the biggest names on FOX, spent the summer and most of the fall painting Hitler moustaches on Obama and making overt suggestions that he is just like Stalin and Hitler. Some of the Republican leaders have done this,too, or refused to criticize those who did.
Result: Obama’s WH gets told it should learn to roll with the punches.
Fuck that shit. You are wrong. Make your arguments without lying and you will be given respect. there are many many arguments and criticisms to be made against Obama, and so far, only “liberals” are making them. Too many conservatives are just flinging shit.
“I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent.”
Free speech zones. Hand-picked audiences at town halls. The ejection of anyone who may even possibly even think of maybe dissenting from any town hall. Long stretches without presidential press conferences.
That wasn’t Obama.
Christopher,
I think there is a lot that is good in this post. If you’re going to enter into political discourse, you better be ready to catch some heat from some people. Thick skin, broad shoulders – whatever you want to call it – is a requirement if you want to stick around. At some point, someone is going to take an unfair swipe at you.
Further, wit and rhetoric (the good kind) are sadly missing in much of our political discourse. Well composed jabs and barbs can be enjoyable to witness, especially with fair minded people who don’t take themselves too seriously.
But that’s where you and I stop agreeing on this.
I don’t see a need for insults, ad hominem remarks or personal attacks. I’ve also seen no evidence that such tactics actually improve debate.
So, you know what that means… pistols at dawn!
This should be interesting.
It’s one thing to be impertinent. It’s quite another to be vulgar. … I’m arguing for the former, not the latter. … Consider this passage from what Goldberg writes: “Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.”
Certain individuals aren’t interested in debate so much as they are in shutting you up. Or as Goldberg writes, “a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.”
Decrying ad hominem argument is usually to the same end. Anything so much as challenging the prevailing and justified politics of identity is suddenly beyond the pale.
There are thresholds in politics where reasonable disagreement is no longer possible. That doesn’t mean we go to war against each other. Before we ever get to that, it means that politics, or, more precisely, genuine civility, is not simply “debating” or “encouraging greater discourse,” but, rather, something more fundamental to the human condition, something, in many respects, much more akin to friendship. Genuine civility is about getting people to see that; sometimes mockery is required, if not absolutely essential. :-)
As a case in point, consider the human rights complaints lodged against Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn by the ‘Sock Puppets,’ as Steyn came to mock them.
In politics, there is many an occasion for good men to thank God for ad hominem argument! :-)
Nathan, the great power behind Fox News is News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch.
How regularly to you watch some of Obama’s fiercest critics on the Fox News Channel?
Those who watch it enough know that Glenn Beck, for instance, is a vociferous critic of Republicans, as well as Democrats. It’s an amazing show.
The hilarious part is that Fox News is forever pointing out the indiscretions of the other networks when it comes to fair and balanced journalism.
It seems that some of the Fox News Channel’s fiercest critics either don’t watch enough of it or they must watching something else besides Fox News.
As far as Obama is concerned, Conrad Black’s recent commentary is pretty exacting on the amateurish reality of the Obama administration. I agree with most of it.
http://network.nationalpost.co.....iasco.aspx
Actually, Fox news is run by Roger Ailes. Look him up, as you don’t appear to have heard of him.
Beck does put on an amazing show – he’s a complete lunatic. Even a lot of people on the right are embarrassed by the guy. Most just want to use some of the paranoid anger he is whipping up (until it bites them on the ass, too). Are you actually positing Beck as an example of civilized discourse?
Nice try on the “they only criticize FOX because they don’t watch it.” That’s a solid argument that can’t possibly be knocked down.
And convicted felon Conrad “can I have my Cdn citizenship back, please?” Black’s thoughts on Obama’s health care bumbling? (and I do agree he has bumbled things by allowing saboteurs a seat at the table) I like that he thinks it’s unfair to count foreigners who are in the US “legally”? It’s a very telling statement, but an ironic one, too, given his own place of birth.
And what does that all have to do with the notion that Obama can’t take criticism?
Nothing. It’s all irrelevant, because the facts don’t support your argument. At all.
Nathan,
Yes, Roger Ailes does run Fox. Check out News Corp.’s website:
http://www.newscorp.com/management/newscor.html
But a fuller appreciation is certainly required. See here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....Obama.html
On your other points:
Yes, Beck is very civilized; really quite likable.
Your criticism of Conrad Black is pathetic ad hominem line of attack. It’s not exactly clear how you intend to mock him. Be exacting! I trust you can do better. :-)
That, however, is beside the point as I was referring you to his illustration of Barack Obama’s amateur gamesmanship, historically highlighted, when it comes to acting like The President of the United States. I said I agree with most of it. If you don’t agree, please, refute the argument Black lays out; re: specifically the last two paragraphs.
You’re not trying.
Beck is a race-baiter and a liar and he either knows it (cynical) or doesn’t (crazy). This is a feature, not a bug:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001
The last para of the Black article says Obama has done nothing so far – how does this square with Beck’s repeated cries that the US is on the verge of turning socialist-fascist? It doesn’t, because there is no coherent criticism from the right.
(Bush spent around 1/3 of his 8 years on vacation. Meanwhile, Obama takes his wife out for dinner and gets savaged. Same with going to Hawaii for a vacation. Yes, he just can’t take criticism…)
The second last paragraph is just dumb – really, Hollywood again? And there is no racism in the criticisms of Obama? I don’t believe it’s primary motivator, but you are just lying if you say it isn’t there.
And you still haven’t managed to link the Black article to the notion that Obama is touchy, which is, after all, the whole point of this thread.
So, lies, distortions, and silly arguments. Thanks for demonstrating exactly how it works.