Thomas Jefferson said, “That differences of opinion should arise among men on politics, on religion and on every other topic of human inquiry, and that these should be freely expressed in a country where all our faculties are free, is to be expected. But these valuable privileges are much perverted when permitted to disturb the harmony of social intercourse, and to lessen the tolerance of opinion.”

I’m an Independent and I agree that the Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech. However, that also means that, as U.S. citizens, we each have the responsibility to listen. Expanding on Jefferson’s quote, I would say, “We don't want Americans to be a bunch of perverts!”

But I don't think it's all flowers and pansies out there.
I believe that most Americans lack basic civility you find in other nations. A drive down the interstate, a line in a bank, the fact that neighbors don't look out for each other any more, or a even the attendance of a protest……You'll find that normal Americans seem to have lost common courtesy and etiquette. It's just not being taught at home any more. There's no one home to teach it and we've become a very selfish generation.

Oh, well.

I wanted to call out this line, though, for special mention (though it's off your point):

“So how many people are truly getting all “wee-weed” up in the political arena?”

Is anybody but me astounded by how quickly this term has passed into the lexicon?

I would argue, the a major part of the problem, however, is that Americans have lost the ability to craft arguments to make their point as well as an appreciation for honest debate. It's as if we don't know how how to conduct an honest debate.

In high school English class, one of our most common assignments was writing essays. Sometimes, we were given two weeks to complete the assignment, and therefore had considerable time to conduct the research needed to write the essay. Other times, we had to complete the essay in the fly, with only fifty minutes to draw from our knowledge in order to quickly complete te essay.

Now, what do you think would have happened if I had turned in a sheet of paper saying “Ernest Hemmingway was a Communist”? Do you think I would have received a passing grade for that “essay”?

Of course not. I would have failed the assignment. And not only that, anyone who had learned that I turn in such garbage would either concluded that I didn't know how to write an essay, or that I knew how to write as essay but didn't take the assignment seriously.

What if, instead, I had written “Ernest Hemmingway was a Communist”, and then had written a two page essay in which I had drawn several quotes for Hemmingway's various works in order to buttress my claim? In the end, a reader might not necessarily agree with my argument, but at least they could agree that I had made an argument, and they, inturn, could have made a counter-argument.

But on the cable news networks, talk radio, and the blogosphere, honest debate is not what we see. Instead we hear soundbytes and ad-hominem attacks that don't represent coherent arguments. Every four years, we have presidential “debates” in which old talking points are rehashed and no new arguments are made. Indeed, in today's presidential “debates”, the debaters are not even allowed to cross examine each other! Go ahead and read the Lincoln-Douglas debates of the 1850's, and you'll see that they resemble nothing of today's “debates.”

How many of you have ever listened to a talk radio exchange in which the radio host shouted out a string of epithets and ad-homimen attacks, and then the next listener to call in complimented the radio host, cheering, “You sure showed him!”

What did he show him? He didn't make an argument! He didn't state any facts! Or if he did, they were, they were tangential to the overall argument he was trying to make.

I remember once listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show on a day in which Roger Hitchcock was filling in for him, and during a particular exchange, he made a comment that I absolutely couldn't believe he would make. Now, in Hitchcock's defense, he was actually pretty calm during the exchange, but that's probably because the exchange was between him and a nonhostile caller.

The exchange went something like this. The listener complained that a Hillary Clinton was criticizing the War in Iraq. Hitchcock then replied, “What do you expect? She's a socialist.”

Sean Hannity made a similar comment about anti-war protester on his radio show back in 2003. As if being a socialist has anything to do with criticizing a war. It doesn't make any sense! The former Soviet Union was filled with socialists, and that didn't seem to stop them from carrying out several wars!

But this is what passes for “debate” in today's world. Politicians and pundits appeal to people's emotions instead of appealing to reason, and it continues because they are rewarded for it. Meanwhile, taking the time to make a comprehensive argument is discouraged, either by time constraints or by cable news/radio hosts shouting over the few people who are attempting to have an honest debate.