Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 24, 2006
Doug Wilson :: Townhall.com Columnist
A culture of civility
by Doug Wilson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Blamers. Idiots. Morons. These and other invectives are often used to describe the “other side” in the battle royal that is modern politics. It is downright fashionable in 2006 to push the envelope of extremism just far enough to get people to read your stuff, laugh out loud, and then, of course, affirm why “we” are right and “they” are wrong. The politician, columnist or activist who can put down the other side with deft sarcasm or clever derogatory labels is often viewed within his or her peer group as the most loyal and dedicated of “believers.”

Psychologists call this phenomenon “splitting”: You make people either all good or all bad. And it starts at an early age: You hate your first grade teacher; you love your friend. Maturity tells us, however, that most of us float somewhere between “all good” and “all bad”. Call it the integrated self. Still in politics we somehow manage to get stuck in a vicious cycle of praising the “all good” politician while demonizing the “all bad” opponent. For instance, conservatives despise Ted Kennedy; liberals hate Rick Santorum. When Bill Clinton was president there were people who couldn’t stand to even look at him. Today, a similar antipathy is aimed at President Bush.

It’s all symptomatic of our crumbling culture of civility. Indeed, I recently heard former Secretary of State Colin Powell say in a speech that he fears we are losing that culture. We are splitting into camps that make the other side all good or all bad, he said.

While these political “food fights” are not new in Washington, history tells us that Congress used to fight all day over ideas and then go out for dinner afterward and actually enjoy each other’s company. Ronald Reagan was famous for fighting with Tip O’Neil during the day and then inviting him over for a beer after 5:00. Ed Meese, Reagan’s former chief policy advisor, once told me that the president and house leader were adversaries before 5:00 and friends after 5:00.

So how did we get here from there? A few things come to mind:

Limited inter-party interaction

As one of my congressional staffer friends told me, “I don’t want to be seen hanging out with one of the staffers from the other side or I will be viewed as a traitor.” This attitude may be shifting, but under Tom DeLay’s leadership it was a well known mantra.

Media driven partisanship

Caring only about ratings. The media wants to create as many partisan fights as it can. Thus, we get a heavy dose of yelling and false accusations in almost every news show. I once even had a conservative commentator tell me he could often hear his producer whispering in his earpiece, “More anger, more anger.” Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Doug Wilson is the the co-author, with Edwin Feulner, of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today.

Be the first to read Doug Wilson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Civility among politicians.
Usually, folks are civil and courteous to those they respect. I've watched and heard the poison spewing from the mouths of the Liberal Leaders: Kennedy screamed, red-faced, something to the effect that the war was concocted at Bush's ranch for political purposes, and Bush has given us nothing but "lies, lies, lies." Algore roared with fervent anger that Bush betrayed the American people. Reid called Bush a loser in front of a school room full of kids. And this is just a beginning list of the the vitriolic rhetoric of the Left. During a debate with Kerry, President Bush was asked why the big division, when he had promised to work with the Democrats. He said he didn't know, thereby evading the blame game, but if he had been the typical Liberal, he would have spent a half hour on excuses and finger-pointing. I've not known Bush to return evil for evil. As far as I know, he's been civil to friend and foe alike.
Civility is a good subject for discussion; now let's cover "dignity among politicians" someday.

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Pluralism
There is a commonly held myth out there as express by flagwaver aptly that goes like this:

****The left/liberals push a societal agenda that stresses that there sre no moral absolutes, nothing is black and white only shades of gray. But where there is no right and wrong, there will eventually be chaos. If everyone is allowed to do that which suits him, with no societal restraints then society falls apart.****

Well said.

However, I believe this notion that liberals have no moral absolutes is completely a myth. Where does it come from? It comes from, I believe, in confusing moral pluralism with moral relativism.

This country is founded on a belief in moral pluralism. That is to say, this country is founded on a belief in freedom of religion. What is religion if not the primary venue of establishing morals? Religious freedom then dictates moral freedom. However, this does not mean that someone who believes in moral pluralism does not believe in moral absolutes.

Take for example the abortion issue. As a liberal I talk with many liberals about the issue. The moral pluralism argument is this. While I believe that for myself abortion is immoral, I do not believe that my belief should be forced on others who believe differently. There are many liberals who are against abortion personally absolutely.

Where I point out to liberals who believe in moral pluralism their hypocrisy is their view on capital punishment. Many liberals who have a "to each their own" view point on abortion do not hold to moral pluralism with respect to capital punishment. It seems to mean moral integrity requires a "to each their own view" on capital punishment for the same reasons it applies to abortion, there is no moral prevailing consensus.

Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe we should stomach as much moral pluralism as possible. While I would never live the lifestyle of the Amish, they are entitled to it. While I think the Amish are morally bankrupt in not fighting for their country, I believe they have the right to be concientious objectors.

Moral pluralism is just another way of saying freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion has real life and death moral consequences, like for the children of Jehovah Witnesses who are not given blood because blood transfusions go against their beliefs.

Which brings me to the crux (a.k.a. cross) of the problem. Children. Children raised in modern public schools are going to be children of people of many religious faiths congregated in on classroom but representing many varied moral upbringings.

What can a teacher do that will satisfy all moral views? It can't be done. Take, for example, the Jehovah Witness blood transfusion moral. Hopefully that is one we agree is morally reprehensible. I absolutely disagree with their morality on the issue. I think they are wrong. Teachers in public school are going to include the history of George Washington Carver and how bood transfusions are a life saving and good. What should a JW parent do? Pull their kid?

The answer that they implicitly know is that specific morality cannot be held in a general setting and that it is the parents job to counter what they believe is wrong in the common culture.

However, having said that, let me just state for the record that I think public schools have gotten out of control morally. For example, an atheist friend of mine (and I'm an atheist) is sending his kid to Catholic private school. Why? Because he can't stand the sexual permissiveness of the school in his neighborhood. The 12 y.o girls are dressing like hoochy prostitutes, basically. I can't say as I disagree with his decision.

Which comes back to the parents. Why don't parents have enough respect for their kids not to allow them to dress like prostitutes at the age of 12? To wit, our schools cannot enforce what we as parents will not enforce in our home. If kids are allowed to listen to rap music, play Grand Theft Auto, and wear sexually suggestive apparell at the age of 12, who's to blame? The liberals? Each and every parent is responsible individually, case by case.

Personally, I'm of the "Kill your T.V." bumper sticker liberal bent. I don't own a TV. I think TV is mind rot. I think TV is bad for mental health. But my liberal position is not a main stream one. Most liberals own TVs.

I got off track. I guess as a liberal I'm more attuned to the notion of moral pluralism. I can't stand the Ku Klux Klan and their racist agenda. Yet, in our culture they have a right to exist as long as they don't break the law. God help their kids.

Anyway, I believe in moral pluralism. I do not personally believe in moral relativism. I believe the Jehovah's are absolutely morally wrong with respect to blood transfusions. I believe the Amish are morally wrong in being concientious objecters. I believe liberals who believe in moral pluralism with regards to abortion are hypocrits in mandating a strict moral policy against captial punishment.

I also absolutely believe television is mind rot and you should kill your TV.

But, the moral which prevents people from killing each other is the moral in believing in freedom of religion and the right for individuals to practice difference beliefs.








Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.