My fellow Americans, we are at war.
No, I’m not talking about the ‘War on Drugs’ or the ‘War on Terrorism.’ I’m not talking about another ‘Cold War’ or a war using all the latest technological horrors our ingenuity can devise. What I’m talking about is something far more insidious that is potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East. I’m talking about a war on Civility.
As the Baby Boom Generation's Beat Culture slid into the Hippie Culture and the Age of Aquarius, America’s youth began to openly shrug off the cultural trappings of their parents and grandparents. They dismissed the formalities of interaction used by the previous generations as “hollow”, “meaningless”, and even “dishonest”. They believed that ‘finishing school’ etiquette helped prop up a class system that was designed to make the rich richer and keep the poor under heel. Therefore, they embraced a rebellious culture of brutally frank honesty with no regard for the effects of their words.
To this day, many of the self-proclaimed ‘intelligentsia’ wrap themselves in a cloak made from the words of the First Amendment and practice this crassly insensitive form of communication. In daily conversation, they use language so scurrilous it would blister the ears of a merchant marine, no matter the setting or the age of casual bystanders. In many businesses, not only is it acceptable to use language that would have gotten you fired as recently as the 1980s, but often individuals who try to maintain a polite and respectful vocabulary are either viewed as ‘soft’, or are assumed to be mocking the listener. Often, if someone tries to express discomfort with the abusive language used by someone around them, the person using the vulgarities starts screaming “censorship” and that the person complaining is trying to deprive them of their Right to Free Speech.
It gets even worse if a discussion or debate is underway. When the members of this literati caste find themselves hearing views opposing their own, they often launch immediately into a verbal personal attack on that speaker, especially when said speaker has disproved the literati's position. In most cases, they will either attack with outrageous accusations and offensive name-calling, or they simply spew forth a stream of invectives as loud as they can in an attempt to ‘shout down’ the opposition. Often, they use both tactics together. In any case, at no time do these ‘enlightened’ members of the ‘tolerant’ ranks afford the speaker with the courtesy of allowing her or him to present their case, then rebutting it logically with facts and observations.
When their beliefs are questioned, the intelligentsia usually follows up by 'gaslighting' the speaker, loudly and publicly accusing them of doing what they themselves were doing all along. They play an intellectually dishonest game of political brinkmanship in an attempt to gain as much sympathy from the general public as they can, while demonizing the person who had the audacity to disagree with them.
When these bastions of the social conscience try to hide behind their Unalienable Right to Free Speech, they fail to acknowledge the flip side of that coin. For every Right granted by the Creator and enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, there are implied Responsibilities and Consequences. The most commonly used example of a limitation to the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment is that one can’t stand up in a crowded theater and shout, “Fire!” if there is no fire. That isn’t exactly true. We actually do have the Right to do so, but we also have the Responsibility to consider the Consequences of our actions and not casually do something that may cause injury to others. If we choose to ignore that responsibility, then we must accept the consequences of our actions, which in this case could mean a fine, jail time, or even civil penalties sought by those injured by the irresponsible act. Basically, it comes down to an old adage I like to use: “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.”
When the late George Carlin came out with his routine, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” he created an iconic comedy performance…as well as the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that established that the FCC did have the authority to prohibit the broadcast of ‘indecent’ material over the public airwaves during the hours when children were likely to be in the audience. However, his views of profanity totally dismissed the value of what I like to call, “Civilization Lubrication.” As Robert Heinlein once wrote,
“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as ‘empty,’ ‘meaningless,’ or ‘dishonest,’ and scorn the use of them. No matter how ‘pure’ their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.” (1)
Of course, considering that Carlin also once stated in one of his routines,
“I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse.” (2)
it’s very possible he was intentionally ‘throwing sand into the machinery.’ This has been going on for several decades, but there are two very good examples of this rampant incivility that occurred in 2009.
The first example happened on Wednesday, 20 May 2009. Political pundit and commentator Glenn Beck was invited to appear on a segment of the daytime television chat show, The View. On his radio program on Tuesday, Mr. Beck related a personal anecdote of a chance encounter with two of The View’s stars that happened on an Amtrak train about two weeks earlier under unusual circumstances. When Mr. Beck appeared on the show, he was suffering from a stomach flu and was trying to remain polite and respectful since he was in, as he put it, ‘their house.’ As soon as the segment began, the two individuals he encountered on the train attacked him…obsessing for over seven minutes about who addressed who first on the train. They demanded explanations and apologies for some imagined sleight, then refused to let him reply. They both called him a ‘liar’ multiple times with one of them going so far as to refer to him as, “…a lying sack of dog mess.” The other went so far as to upbraid him for failing to check his facts before reporting a story, even though he had simply been relating a personal anecdote as he remembered it and not reporting a news story, and he has stated numerous times over the years that he is a commentator, not a reporter. All through this baseless attack, Mr. Beck reacted with civility and dignity, refusing to lower himself to the level of his attackers.
The second example happened on Thursday, 21 May 2009. President Barack Obama delivered an address at the National Archives defending his recent decisions on national security. The speaker who immediately followed The President was former Vice-President Dick Cheney who delivered an address that supported the national security policies implemented by the Bush Administration, and criticizing the Obama Administration's reduction of the security measures implemented by his predecessor. Unfortunately, instead of using this as a wonderful opportunity to open up a discussion on the merits of both speeches, a user of the online social network, Facebook, decided to create a page in support of, “Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up.” In other words, those Oh So Tolerant individuals who scream ‘censorship’ every time someone asks them to stop using profanity around children have decided that the former Vice-President of the United States no longer has a Right to Free Speech just because he disagrees with the current President.
In fact, my previous post in this blog contains another perfect example of this behavior. In it, I shared an article by respected historian, Victor Davis Hanson, that illustrates just how the the Progressive apologists for the terrorist organization, Hamas, are using these tactics to blame Israel for the atrocities Hamas perpetrated upon them and to convince the public that Israel is the villain, not Hamas. They are going out of their way to project Hamas' inhuman behavior onto Israel and accuse them of doing to Arabs and Muslims what Hamas has in fact been doing to Jews since their inception. Simply stated, the truth doesn't support their political narrative so they have to destroy it.
So, what makes this incivility “potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East” you ask? It’s this: the incivility into which American culture has been plunged is a wedge that has divided the country into ‘Us’ and ‘Them,’ ‘Left’ and ‘Right,’ ‘Red States’ and ‘Blue States,’ ‘Originalists’ and ‘Progressives.’ As long as feelings and opinions are regarded as legitimate rebuttle to hard facts and figures; as long as any voices are silenced and prevented from presenting their arguments reasonably, logically, and courteously; we will never be able to span the chasm between us and reunite as One Nation. If we do not heal this divide, the United States will be finished. As the old adage says, "United we stand, Divided we fall."
It is time to heal this country, not separate it further. Put down the donkey and elephant banners; put away your copy of, “Snappy Comebacks to Stupid Questions”; take a deep breath and let the person across from you finish his or her thought before you reply…and occasionally pause to let that other person either ask questions or rebut your points. The important thing is to stop the shouting and name-calling and begin to dialogue with one another. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, just keep in mind that the person on the other side of the argument also has the right to be passionate about their beliefs. Remember that there is a difference between being passionate and being emotional, so leave emotions out of the discussion. Also remember that one can be passionate and still present a logical argument supported by facts. And finally, before you come to the table, triple check your facts to make certain you are not basing your arguments on hearsay, innuendo, opinion, or urban myth. I’m always open to other points of view, but you’d better be able to support your position with cold, hard facts or I reserve the right to point out your errors!
Now, go out there and discuss, debate, and decide. Keep an open mind and end the War on Civility. Just stop all the bickering, gaslighting, name-calling, and shouting!
Until next time, be well, Dear Ones!
(1) Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein © 1973 Robert A. Heinlein
(2) Life Is Worth Losing by George Carlin © 2005 George Carlin
No comments:
Post a Comment