Column: In Praise of Incivility
A couple of days ago I announced that I am trying to do something completely new with my blog: instead of asking people to become co-bloggers, I am trying to surround myself with great columnists. Rich Horton agreed and published his first column today: “In Praise of Incivility.”
The idea of having ‘columnists’ is that I – and I am sure some of you as well – get tired of constantly reading (and writing) about the latest (breaking) news. Thoughts are often best expressed in columns, which do not have to be written in 10 minutes time, and do not need to be a reaction to the latest breaking news. Columns can be, gasp, thoughtful.
I greatly encourage all of you to read Rich’s column. The intro:
It says something about our society that even after all of this time the internet can still give so many folks the screaming heebie jeebies. You cannot swing a nice four-letter expletive around without hitting a main stream media lament about the state of American discourse. The culprits, we are told, are various bloggers of the left and right, anonymous commenters with dubious language skills, and assorted other evildoers who add to the near certain ruination of our fine republic. For the most part, bloggers react to such criticism by stomping their feet and shouting, “You don’t understand me! You’ve never loved me and you never will! I hate you!†If there was an internet equivalent of running up to their room and slamming the door, I’m sure they would add that as well.
This little drama seemingly repeats itself every month or two; so often in fact that I sometimes feel like I’m stuck in the movie Groundhog Day, except without the ability to actually change anything. The reason nothing ever changes in this scenario has to do with the intersection of human nature with the nature of the internet. Believe it or not, it is a question with philosophical import and it has quite a pedigree.
In his dialogue The Laws, Plato discusses what has to be the best analogous practice to the internet in all of the history of philosophy: the drinking party.
Please click here to read more.
7 Responses to “Column: In Praise of Incivility”
Rather weak praise. More like, ‘It’s here, it’s here. Next.’
It’s great when a kaleidoscope is shaken up to produce a new vision.
I truly appreciate the new angle.
“Rather weak praise.” – cosmo
Permit me to try to turn up the volume on Rich’s theme.
I have also wondered about the periodic gnashing of teeth and rending of garments one regularly sees regarding the uncivil state of blogospheric discourse. Rather than Rich’s philosophical path, I took a look at the history of political discourse in America but arrive at a similar conclusion.
Even a cursory historical look at our electoral history leads to an understanding that unified, civil, non-partisan debate is, well, downright un-american. More in my post on the subject, conclusion excerpted here:
MW- do you really think the Ds and Rs want MORE participation? Together they account for barely 50% of the population. The only way to keep their duopoly is to discourage participation, and I disagree with your premise.
The more partisan, the more people turn off and don’t give a damn. The internal wars mean nothing outside the Beltway. It’s only a real outer crisis that gets voters turned on.
This is very predictable in a stable democracy- there’s simply too much else going on to care over county judgeships, and the like.
I say, more apathy is needed. If only 2% or less vote, then someone may actually think there’s a need for change, and third parties can fill the void. Right now, with things neither too hot nor cold, it’s just RIGHT for the mediocrity that the Coke D’s and Pepsi R’s provide.
“The more partisan, the more people turn off and don’t give a damn…” – cosmo
Historically not true. This interesting factoid is from the HarpWeek website:
But, I don’t think that is your main point anyway. It seems you are actually arguing for 3rd parties. While sympathetic, I don’t think a 3rd party is a viable solution in our system, unless it actually supplants on of the major parties (As Republicans replaced Whigs). The practical reality is that a successful 3rd party will only have the effect of electing the “greater of two evils” for the 3rd party supporters (Perot supporters elected Clinton, Nader supporters elected Bush).
The diff is the 19th C was def more partisan but far more local. People were not bombarded with the constant reverb of the media, so such claims really are not applicable.
And your arg. against 3rd parties is the same old defeatist sentiment, which self-fulfills.
Cos,
You would benefit from a closer reading of history in that era. There was no pretense of of objective journalism. Newspapers were Democractic or Republican. Partisans read only their paper. Pamphleteers wre on every streetcorner and were the bloggers of the day. The Tilden/ Hayes NATIONAL presidential election is particularly instructive, complete with a minority popular vote candidate elected on a disputed electoral college vote:
Ad Hominem characterizations of “defeatist sentiment” being a self-fullfilling propecy is nonsense. The reason why 3rd parties fail is because there are not enough votes to support them. Full stop. The American electorate breaks down into roughly 1/3 hard core Republicans, 1/3 hard core Democrats, and 1/3 that call themselves independent. Of the 1/3 in the middle that claim to be independent, most actually identify more closely with R or D, and when they are in privacy of the voting booth, will always vote in their comfort zone. The actual base of independent voter that will switch parties from one election to the next is probably in the range of no more than 10% to 20%. Enough to be spoilers, not enough to elect a third party candidate. That is not “self-fullfilling defeatism.” That is reality. Sorry it does not fit your world view. Not my problem.
I actually consider myself an optimist. I believe that that 10% of truly independent voters can become a viable political force by coordinating their votes around an organizing principle. A principle that is proven to provide greater fiscal responsibility, restrain the growth of the state, provide more oversight, better legislation, fewer wars and overall better governance. If you are interested, there is more in my post here.