"Today (Barry) Goldwater Would Be At The Left Wing Of The Republican Party," And That's A SHAME!
Nation needs more civil discourse
Written by Al Cross
LEXINGTON, Ky. — When a deranged man shot 19 people in Tucson three months ago, killing U.S. District Judge John Roll and five others, and nearly killing U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Pima County sheriff pointed a finger at “the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,” and went on to criticize Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk-show hosts for fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was off base. There was no evidence that such factors or individuals had anything to do with Jared Loughner's attack at a Giffords meeting for her constituents. But he voiced a valid concern about the state of dialogue in our republic, which has become so coarse and polarized that it is affecting our ability to deal with our problems.
The concern was widely expressed after the shooting, partly because Trey Grayson, then Kentucky secretary of state, revealed that Giffords had written the night before to congratulate him on becoming director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics, saying, “I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. ... We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.”
Giffords, a Democrat, and Grayson, a Republican, met in 2005 as part of the first class of Rodel fellows of the Aspen Institute, which calls them a bipartisan group of “promising young political leaders ... committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue.”
Kentucky was the only state with two fellows in that group of 18. The other was Democrat Jonathan Miller — then state treasurer, later a candidate for governor and finance secretary for Gov. Steve Beshear.
Miller resigned that job to enter the private sector, effective March 31. The next day, he launched a website, TheRecoveringPolitician.com, to which he has recruited more than 20 other “recovering” pols who will offer “open and honest dialogue” about issues and ideas. And guest commenters must identify themselves, not hide behind the anonymity that often coarsens debate.
As Miller was talking about his effort Thursday night at the University of Kentucky, another former politician, this one a Republican, was speaking elsewhere in Lexington to promote the cause of civil discourse, at an event sponsored by the Kentucky Humanities Council.
Former U.S. Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, whom President Barack Obama named chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, gave some examples of uncivil discourse, such as the words “fascist,” “Communist” and “secession.”
Those words have been used by some of Obama's extreme opponents, whom Leach avoided mentioning. But he said the words not only are inaccurate, they are insensitive, because Americans have fought wars to defeat all three ideologies or ideas.
Leach and Miller spoke — and this column had to be written — before Friday night's deadline for Congress to pass a bill to avoid a shutdown of the federal government, but that process helps illustrate why we need more civil discourse.
Our nation is economically stressed, and Democrats' debt-financed response to the recession has provoked a reaction among voters — and among Republicans, some of whom are challenging the fundamental frameworks of New Deal and Great Society programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
Many of them say the national debt is a moral question, but Leach is wary of such characterizations. “The word ‘moral' is being abused too easily,” he said, warning that if one or both sides in such a debate consider the other side immoral, that makes dialogue and compromise more difficult.
Uncivil discourse is nothing new in politics, but it is more amplified than ever by what Leach called “transformative issues in communication technology.”
The Internet and cable TV have spawned a proliferation of information outlets, leaving newspapers less able to fulfill their traditional role as finders of fact and providers of information to a majority of voters. Electronic media outlets, hungry for ratings, tailor news and information for niche audiences, who gravitate to sources that confirm their existing views.
The result is the greatest polarization ever, Leach said, suggesting that he sees it most in his own party. “Today (Barry) Goldwater would be at the left wing of the Republican Party,” he said. “The great American center has almost no representation in the Republican Party today, and very little in the Democratic Party.”
That is not so in Kentucky, where moderates dominate the Democratic Party, but we are not immune to the polarization process. Our state is divided among so many media markets that many voters lack knowledge about state issues, but they get plenty of information from national media. Appearances on Fox News helped Rand Paul build statewide credibility, defeat Grayson in a primary and become one of our U.S. senators.
Miller said national polls show people “want less vitriol and more thoughtful discussion,” but talking about civil discourse “is not sexy or exciting,” and doesn't motivate people to act. Tragedies like the Tucson shootings may provide openings for discussion, but the sheriff and other observers on the left oversold that one.
Miller is also a founder of No Labels, a national group of Democrats and Republicans formed to “fight hyper-partisanship,” its leaders say, and to be a voice for Americans “right in the middle, who have had no one representing them in the big political debates.” That's an exaggeration, probably designed as a sales pitch to people in the center. But someone needs to make a pitch to them, because it's time for the center to speak up.
Al Cross, former Courier-Journal political writer, is director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues in the School of Journalism and Telecommunications at the University of Kentucky. His email address is al.cross@uky.edu. His views are his own, not those of the University of Kentucky.
Editor's comment: And Jonathan Miller himself is as partisan as it gets.
Written by Al Cross
LEXINGTON, Ky. — When a deranged man shot 19 people in Tucson three months ago, killing U.S. District Judge John Roll and five others, and nearly killing U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Pima County sheriff pointed a finger at “the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,” and went on to criticize Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk-show hosts for fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was off base. There was no evidence that such factors or individuals had anything to do with Jared Loughner's attack at a Giffords meeting for her constituents. But he voiced a valid concern about the state of dialogue in our republic, which has become so coarse and polarized that it is affecting our ability to deal with our problems.
The concern was widely expressed after the shooting, partly because Trey Grayson, then Kentucky secretary of state, revealed that Giffords had written the night before to congratulate him on becoming director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics, saying, “I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. ... We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.”
Giffords, a Democrat, and Grayson, a Republican, met in 2005 as part of the first class of Rodel fellows of the Aspen Institute, which calls them a bipartisan group of “promising young political leaders ... committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue.”
Kentucky was the only state with two fellows in that group of 18. The other was Democrat Jonathan Miller — then state treasurer, later a candidate for governor and finance secretary for Gov. Steve Beshear.
Miller resigned that job to enter the private sector, effective March 31. The next day, he launched a website, TheRecoveringPolitician.com, to which he has recruited more than 20 other “recovering” pols who will offer “open and honest dialogue” about issues and ideas. And guest commenters must identify themselves, not hide behind the anonymity that often coarsens debate.
As Miller was talking about his effort Thursday night at the University of Kentucky, another former politician, this one a Republican, was speaking elsewhere in Lexington to promote the cause of civil discourse, at an event sponsored by the Kentucky Humanities Council.
Former U.S. Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, whom President Barack Obama named chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, gave some examples of uncivil discourse, such as the words “fascist,” “Communist” and “secession.”
Those words have been used by some of Obama's extreme opponents, whom Leach avoided mentioning. But he said the words not only are inaccurate, they are insensitive, because Americans have fought wars to defeat all three ideologies or ideas.
Leach and Miller spoke — and this column had to be written — before Friday night's deadline for Congress to pass a bill to avoid a shutdown of the federal government, but that process helps illustrate why we need more civil discourse.
Our nation is economically stressed, and Democrats' debt-financed response to the recession has provoked a reaction among voters — and among Republicans, some of whom are challenging the fundamental frameworks of New Deal and Great Society programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
Many of them say the national debt is a moral question, but Leach is wary of such characterizations. “The word ‘moral' is being abused too easily,” he said, warning that if one or both sides in such a debate consider the other side immoral, that makes dialogue and compromise more difficult.
Uncivil discourse is nothing new in politics, but it is more amplified than ever by what Leach called “transformative issues in communication technology.”
The Internet and cable TV have spawned a proliferation of information outlets, leaving newspapers less able to fulfill their traditional role as finders of fact and providers of information to a majority of voters. Electronic media outlets, hungry for ratings, tailor news and information for niche audiences, who gravitate to sources that confirm their existing views.
The result is the greatest polarization ever, Leach said, suggesting that he sees it most in his own party. “Today (Barry) Goldwater would be at the left wing of the Republican Party,” he said. “The great American center has almost no representation in the Republican Party today, and very little in the Democratic Party.”
That is not so in Kentucky, where moderates dominate the Democratic Party, but we are not immune to the polarization process. Our state is divided among so many media markets that many voters lack knowledge about state issues, but they get plenty of information from national media. Appearances on Fox News helped Rand Paul build statewide credibility, defeat Grayson in a primary and become one of our U.S. senators.
Miller said national polls show people “want less vitriol and more thoughtful discussion,” but talking about civil discourse “is not sexy or exciting,” and doesn't motivate people to act. Tragedies like the Tucson shootings may provide openings for discussion, but the sheriff and other observers on the left oversold that one.
Miller is also a founder of No Labels, a national group of Democrats and Republicans formed to “fight hyper-partisanship,” its leaders say, and to be a voice for Americans “right in the middle, who have had no one representing them in the big political debates.” That's an exaggeration, probably designed as a sales pitch to people in the center. But someone needs to make a pitch to them, because it's time for the center to speak up.
Al Cross, former Courier-Journal political writer, is director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues in the School of Journalism and Telecommunications at the University of Kentucky. His email address is al.cross@uky.edu. His views are his own, not those of the University of Kentucky.
Editor's comment: And Jonathan Miller himself is as partisan as it gets.
Labels: Democratism, Politics, Republicanism
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 10:16 AM
1 Comments:
Osi,
I don't think the article was knocking partisanship, but rather the vitrol used by partisans. You can fight for your party without the name calling and labeling. I am also as partisan as it gets. I am a centrist democrat and proud of it. LOL
Post a Comment
<< Home