Fighting Extremism With Civility (Guest Voice)
Nov 30th, 2009 | 8 responses
WASHINGTON — The most surprising and disappointing aspect of our politics is how little pushback there has been against the vile, extremist rhetoric that has characterized such a large part of the anti-Obama movement.
President Obama’s administration has largely ignored those accusing him of “fascism” and “communism,” presumably believing that restraint in defense of dignity is no vice.
Republican politicians, worried about future primary fights, have been reluctant to pick a fight with a radical right that seems to be the most energized section of their party. Their “moderation” has consisted of a non-benign neglect of the extremists, and of accusing the president merely of “socialism.”
And so it is that the first genuinely ringing call for moderation has come from a man who is effectively without a party, and whose own demeanor and career define temperance.
Jim Leach spent 30 years as a Republican member of Congress who went his own way. If this meant standing almost alone against his caucus, he was content to do so.
But he was never bombastic about it, as befits an extravagantly understated guy. The characteristic Leach look is a comfortable sweater worn under a tweed jacket, in season and out. That’s about as fashionable as the persona of old Mr. Chips, the warmhearted and mildly Victorian headmaster who was the hero of James Hilton’s 1934 novel.
Leach lost his Iowa seat in the 2006 Democratic tide, but he emerged relieved rather than bitter. He turned to academia, not the lobbying trade favored by so many other defeated politicians, and in 2008 engaged in the ultimate act of a maverick (a real one) by becoming a Republican for Obama. The new president in turn appointed Leach chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
It was in this role that Leach offered his critique of extremism in a speech at the National Press Club titled “Bridging Cultures” a few days before Thanksgiving. It deserves far more attention than it has received.
“Little is more important for the world’s leading democracy in this change-intensive century,” Leach argued, “than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square.
“If we don’t try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life?”
But our own political practice belies anything remotely like “civility,” a word that Leach has as much a right to use as anyone in public life.
“It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics,” he declared. “Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify — or cloud — thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts.”
But what are we doing in this great democracy? “Public officials,” Leach observed, “are being labeled ‘fascist’ or ‘communist.’ And more bizarrely, significant public figures have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism — the notion of ‘secession.’” This last is a reference to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s effort to ride to re-election by invoking a concept that we thought had been discredited in 1865.
Leach has no problem with a vigorous debate, but he’s right that much of what passes for argument right now is mere calumny.
“There is, after all, a difference between holding a particular tax or spending or health care view,” he said, “and asserting that an American who supports another approach or is a member of a different political party is an advocate of an ‘ism’ of hate that encompasses gulags and concentration camps. One framework of thought defines rival ideas; the other, enemies.”
As a result, “citizens of various philosophical persuasions are reflecting increased disrespect for fellow citizens and thus for modern day democratic governance.”
Leach still has a lot of the old moderate Republican in him, and he is critical of a political system that, by creating so many safe one-party seats, has produced strong incentives for politicians “to remain firmly positioned far from the center.” He adds: “Institutional polarization is the inevitable result.” That’s true, too.
Leach’s speech is the kickoff for a 50-state “civility tour,” and my hunch is that this very civil man may have to put up with a lot of incivility along the way. It’s strange that a call to consider respecting each other more might become a controversial endeavor. This is precisely why Leach’s witness to moderation requires an immoderate dose of courage.
This column is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV in full. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
8 Responses to “Fighting Extremism With Civility (Guest Voice)”
Not only does Dionne fail again — the hatred on the Left dwarfs that on the Right, and what was directed at Bush dwarfs what was directed at the Clintons or at Obama (who has seen less than the Clintons saw).
More importantly, is this just another variant on the theme of the GOP being a comic-book caricature of spayed and neutered Democrats, as a token “opposition”? The infighting between farther- and lesser-left people is far more interesting as well as substantial.
This undertaking resembles the bleating of the misnamed “mainstream caucus” containing Republicans who were defending Big Government after the 1994 elections.
Or is it like some already in Washington, trying to ingratiate themselves with Obama and a strong Democratic group who currently runs the place?
Maybe they really mean what they're saying, but history advises us to be awfully cynical about it.
I think DLS has missed a major point of the article, namely, that our culture seems to accept vile, hateful rhetoric as a suitable substitute for civil discourse based on reasoned opinion or factual information. This applies to people with ideologies that emprison their brains from the far left or the far right.Even you should agree, however, that the far right currently excels in the art of spreading emotionally-charged propaganda as a substitute for reason.
It's the damn internet. Now we can HOLLER and curse and sip our beer with out any danger. We are free to spew half-truths and provide links to any position, no matter how far out. With that as competition, the paid media needs a bigger megaphone to reach ears often covered with earphones.
you really need to get over your left vs right idiocy. the plain and simple truth is that gw bush was an awful president. awful. period. there's no point in listing the litany of misdeeds he committed as everyone is painfully aware of them and frankly it would take more energy than i have left at this point in time.
the fact that clinton was a rotten president in no way justifies the shrub's actions or behavior.
reagan's misdeeds in no way justify the crap that clinton pulled.
see how it works? if they did something wrong then they're wrong, plain and simple. what really sux is that our choice last year came down to obama/biden vs mccain/palin. a mccain/palin administration is a pretty terrifying thought. i'm really hoping [against all odds] that obama can turn out to be better than they might have been.
candidly, obama is the worst president in my living memory except for reagan, clinton and both bushes; but he's working really hard to catch up with them and has made a remarkable amount of progress in a very short time.
I can't. Maybe the words “communist” and “socialist” offend you more than “fascist” and “teabagger”, but they're all meant to group, belittle and dismiss people en mass. I've seen as much, if not more, hatred and blanket put downs on DailyKos and HuffPo as on WSJ. It's not constructive, logical, or civil, but it's common.
Daily Kos and Huffington Post and innumerable other examples are well beneath the Wall Street Journal.
It's no use trying to reason with those who have already, immediately seized and firmly hold incorrect conclusions (often for highly emotional reasons).
“the paid media needs a bigger megaphone”
I don't believe they do. They already are strident as well as tabloidish. The “news” magazines are a vulgar form of info-tainment, often differing little from, say, People or Us.
(What to read instead on airplanes or wherever else you're captive for a while? Aside from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, my favorites include the Economist.)
The door swings both ways on vile, extremist rhetoric; to the left and to the right, mentioning one without the other seems to be kinda vile and extremist rhetoric