The Glade 4.0

Fighting Extremism With Civility

Monday 30 November 2009

by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed

photo
Former Republican Congressman Jim Leach. (Photo: studio08denver)

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.

(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

It looks to me like the subject of the article in question is asking everyone, not just the right, to be more restrained and civil. However, the right is leaps and bounds worse than the left is, or ever was over the last 10 years. Open calls for secession, prayer movements praying for the president's death, southern preachers praying for his death, people with guns at rallies, Glenn Beck, did I mention Glenn Beck, oh, and Glenn Beck.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

So essentially he is saying let's cut the rhetoric and address the issues? Sad that this concept is considered radical nowadays.

That isn't what he's saying at all. He's saying that paramount to discourse is "civility."

Again, if this editor wants to advocate civility towards healthcare overhaul or the President, they should pick as a spokesperson someone who actually disagrees with healthcare overhaul or the President.

Unfortunately, these people don't really mean "civility," it's clear from their use of language. They have a problem with the content of the oppositions message, not the tone. Hence, rather than refute labels of "socialist," "fascist," or "communist," they merely impugn the author of those statements.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Hopwin:

Considering that Fascism was an implementation of socialist populism in Italy and socialist nationalism in Germany, I fail to see how they were mutually exclusive.

The left is all warm and cuddly now that they have their guy in office. Prior to that, it was burning effigies, websites devoted to slandering Bush, calling him a chimp, calling him the worst president of all time, calling everyone under the sun racist, etc.

The left is all warm and cuddly now that they have their guy in office. Prior to that, it was burning effigies, websites devoted to slandering Bush, calling him a chimp, calling him the worst president of all time, calling everyone under the sun racist, etc.

Hopwin:

Considering that Fascism was an implementation of socialist populism in Italy and socialist nationalism in Germany, I fail to see how they were mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, Hopwin, you'd have to demonstrate that (even if the terms were mutually exclusive) the same individuals are labeling Obama both of the exclusive terms.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

I am not picking on either side of the aisle.

We have a lot of name calling right now but it is no worse than the Left was when Bush was in office, in fact it might even be slightly more tame.

Then to be correct, you would have to say that he is an Italian or German fascist. Fascism by definition is when the state controls all (or the bulk of) industry; socialism/communism is when the people/community own the means of production.

I am not picking on either side of the aisle. We have a lot of name calling right now but it is no worse than the Left was when Bush was in office, in fact it might even be slightly more tame.

...Hopwin, you'd have to demonstrate that (even if the terms were mutually exclusive) the same individuals are labeling Obama both of the exclusive terms. Otherwise it could simply be a variance of opinion.

For example, I am undecided as to whether he is a fascist or a communist. What I actually am thinking is that he (and most of his administration) are some sort of new political animal, evolved from a mish-mash of both....

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement -- even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.