Information about the shooting of U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords was slow getting to me Saturday. Instead of monitoring news, I was nursing a cold with old movies, sports and frequent naps.
Therefore, by the time I heard about the killing of six and wounding of more than a dozen in Tucson, there were plenty of people already pointing fingers.
Atop the sentiments was one theme: Stop the hate speech.
I wholeheartedly agree; it’s something I’ve been preaching many years. It was troubling, though, that so many of the comments crying for an end to hate speech were themselves tainted. Many inferred that Sarah Palin might be somehow responsible because she had included Giffords’ district as one “targeted” by conservatives. Someone even tried to place some blame on George W. Bush. You get the idea.
Do they not see their statements as being similarly inflammatory? No, I think they do not, because they know in their hearts that their political beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong, if not evil. The same mentality belongs to many on the opposite side. Both Republicans and Democrats have demonized each other for years now.
However, I found hope in Sunday morning’s “Meet the Press” on NBC. Moderator David Gregory had five members of Congress as guests: Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Paul Labrador (R-Idaho). (Find more here.)
There were three Democrats and two Republicans, including the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, a Latino, a woman, a newcomer ... but they seemed pretty well united in addressing the situation.
In summary, they admitted much of the toxic language damaging the country begins in Washington, D.C., and stated that politicians need to recognize their influence on heated national discourse. They continually said that having different opinions did not mean having less respect for one’s political opponent. They stressed that, in spite of the differences, they were friends.
Following are some quotes that caught my ear:
“True tolerance is not pretending to have no differences. It’s being kind and decent to each other in spite of those differences.” – Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)
“We are in a dark place in this country right now and the atmospheric condition is toxic and much of it originates here in Washington, D.C., and we export it around the country. ... I think members of Congress either need to turn down the volume, begin to try to exercise some high level of civility, or this darkness will never ever be overcome with light.” – Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
“I saw something as I walked in this morning. I saw two members of Congress from two different sides give each other a hug. I think maybe people need to see that more often, that even though we disagree passionately about the issues, that we can actually get along and are actually friends.” – Rep. Paul Labrador (R-Idaho)
“We fight and debate in an arena, but you have to leave that intensity in the arena and respect one another as Americans and human beings.” – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Rep. Schultz made me think of a sporting event. If you watch two football teams go head-to-head during the course of the game, you will see a lot of intensity, including an occasional questionable hit, some shoving or fighting between plays, guys yelling at one another, that sort of thing. Then, after the game, you’ll see those combatants greeting each other, exchanging hugs, laughing it up.
OK, it’s not really that simple.
Good, honest opinions in this country run the gamut. People sincerely believe their ideas are best and that is fine.
What we’re missing is the willingness to accept that other ideas are all right, that maybe they will work as well or better. Heck, we need to be OK with the thought that other ideas might not work as well as ours but that we’ll make it after all.
We need to be able to state what we want, listen to what others want, seek a middle ground, accept the final decision and then hug and jointly go to work to make the best of it.
And, finally, we need to be able to do all of that without ever trying to make a villain or a demon of the opposition. When we dehumanize our opponent is when we begin a tailspin into oblivion.
(c) 2011 by Steve Martaindale
6 comments:
I watched a little about it on FOX and CNN last night and those on it, both commentators and those involved and they blamed the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, Sarah Palin and anyone who opposed Obamacare but it was hard to find very many who actually blamed the idiot who shot those people.
Steve, I think you have a point but it's a little scary when anything like this happens everybody wants people to stop saying certain things. To stop talking in a particular way. I kind of hate to think where that may lead.
JP
I wish you would think about where that may lead, JP. The "certain things" and "particular ways" are only what I called hate speech. So, where might it lead?
If we can vigorously defend our beliefs without saying certain things like "you're crazy" and without resorting to a particular way like "those of your ilk are out to overthrow the Constitution," then maybe civil discourse will lead to Congress actually achieving something without encouraging the mentally unstable to pick up arms and shoot innocent people.
I'm not talking about stifling arguments but about carrying them out in such a fashion that progress can be made and there is less hatred floating around the country.
OK,so which words would you like to outlaw first? Then which ones after those?
JP
Nowhere did I nor did any of the Congress members suggest outlawing anything. Do you really think you need the threat of fine or imprisonment to learn civility in public discourse? However, should one need a guide about what to not say, I would suggest the Golden Rule.
It is possible, I believe. Don’t you (hope it’s OK to use you as an example) have friends whose political beliefs are polar opposites of yours? Can’t you disagree on some topic, argue it and still get along? You do not spew hatred at your friend because you respect him or her.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Now, how about that hug?
You know my friends. What civility? (JUST KIDDING).
One NY Republican wants a law outlawing carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a Congressman, Senator etc. holding some event. I'm not arguing for or against gun control but what if some guy's sitting on a park bench lawfully carrying a gun then some Senator walks buy and starts holding an "event." Does the guy get arrested? What if some Senator is walking the sidewalk talking to voters. Does the guy with a gun have to keep moving to stay away from him? With that I'm not referring to outlawing words as we started out on this thing but I'm referring to idiots wanting more laws in knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy.
I guess it's this. I don't want more laws and I sure don't want anybody telling me what I can or can't say. Not even suggesting it, with that famous exception of shouting "fire" in a theater. Sure people should discuss and disagree in a civil manor but what if they want to shout and cuss during a discussion in their front yard? Will they be arrested for that?
I think I'm just fed up with a lot of things the government wants me to do or not do. I don't want to be told how to do much of anything as long as what I'm doing doesn't hurt someone else.
I guess writing that will have the FBI on my front porch this afternoon.
JP
Oh, and how about us just shaking hands? I only hug my mom, cute chicks and my cats.
JP
Post a Comment