GovernmentExecutive.com

I am deeply troubled by the tenor of current political discourse in this country. More and more Republicans don't just disagree with Democrats, they despise them -- and vice versa. People don't just challenge someone's views -- they challenge the other person's integrity. Enjoyable, informative, and civil discussions between people with different points of view are becoming rare.

The most recent episode to deeply offend me occurred after Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife left the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in tears. An Alito opponent soon asked on a popular liberal Web site, "Do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?"

On the same day, I happened to watch The War Room, a documentary about the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. In one scene, Clinton strategist James Carville fielded reporters' questions arising from allegations by conservatives that Clinton had been brainwashed or recruited as a Soviet agent while he backpacked across Europe during college.

There may well be plenty of reasons to oppose Alito's confirmation or to have opposed Clinton's candidacy, but aren't these attacks out of bounds for a civil society?

Of course, playing politics has never been a game of patty-cake. Politics junkies have all heard that a House member from the South beat an anti-slavery senator unconscious in 1856 and that the 1884 campaign chant against Grover Cleveland, who was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, was "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha."

But an unreasonable share of today's political conversation is venomous and lacking any effort at accuracy or fairness. I blame this problem first on the rise of political food-fight shows on cable television, on radio talk shows, and most recently on the Internet, where political discourse has become the Wild West.

Although televised left-right sparring matches go way back -- at least to the 60 Minutes segment of the 1970s pitting conservative James Kilpatrick against liberal Shana Alexander -- the bounds of decency were respected as the other side's views were attacked. But talk radio erased those boundaries. Talk radio is tailored for like-minded people, and the host's goal is to promote outrage among listeners. The clear purpose is to inflame, not inform.

Fans of talk radio are quick to argue that its growth is due to a liberal and pro-Democratic bias among the mainstream media, a charge that is not completely without merit. It is certainly a plausible theory that the Newt Gingrich-led Republican sweep of the House and Senate in 1994 was powered largely by conservative talk-show hosts, most notably Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh and others tapped into a stream of outrage among alienated conservatives, and whipped their audiences into a frenzy that helped lead to the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years.

The Internet has simply taken the hostilities to new heights. Despite being one of the most amazing technological developments of the past 100 years, it is also an electronic version of the inside door of a public bathroom stall. Libelous accusations can be posted anonymously. And information that is inaccurate or taken totally out of context can get widely disseminated instantaneously.

What makes all of this so corrosive is that fewer people are reading, watching, or listening to political coverage that is balanced and fair. This results in hair-trigger reactions to any perceived misdeed by anyone in the opposite party, while partisans ignore comparable mistakes in their own party.

It all makes me nostalgic for my days as a high school debater. For one hour, we would have to argue the affirmative side of a proposal. During the next hour, we would have to make the case in opposition just as strenuously. Before long, most of us reached the conclusion that the truth was rarely found exclusively on a single side and that there are very legitimate arguments on each side of just about every important policy question. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Americans share that view.

If there is a solution to the degeneration of our political debate, I haven't found it. But I certainly hope someone finds it soon.

COMMENTS

• Taxpayer, Well it looks like we're both wrong. The 49 percent I quoted came from an article I had read in Newsweek or some other periodical. According to the Census Bureau 63.8 percent of eligible U.S. citizens voted in our last election. As to the difference between absentee ballots and vote-by-mail -- here's how it works. All elections in Oregon are vote-by-mail. That means approximately three weeks before the election ballots are mailed to all eligible voters. In addition you will receive a voter's pamphlet describing all the candidates and/or initiatives you will be voting on. For a $500 fee you can buy space to post an argument for or against a candidate or initiative. Once you receive the ballot you have until 8:00 p.m. election day to return your ballot (postmarks don't count). Aside from mailing there are drop boxes scattered throughout the county to put your ballot in. Not only does it increase voter turnout it actually saves money. No more need to man all those precinct polling places. Absentee ballots can still be obtained 45 days prior to election if you plan on being out of town during the election period. Is it perfect? Probably not but so far the glitches have been minor and it leaves a paper trail. I believe the state of Washington is proposing to go to vote-by-mail in the next election. On a humorous note, a friend of mine refused to use vote by mail because he felt that having to put a stamp on an envelope was the equivalent of having to pay a poll tax. So, for his birthday I gave him a nicely decorated box. On it I put a label that read "Votin' Coupons." Inside the box I put 20 first class stamps. I told him he now has no excuses to not vote. Of course he hadn't used them all before they raised the first class rates. In order for him to vote in this next election I told him he needs to put his 2 cents in. Mike H. Posted February 13, 2006 2:38 PM
• It seems this discussion has digressed from its original intent. But that last comment just begs a response. Dear "Taxpayer", Why did you single out one of the three major professions (police and firemen being the other two) to lose a significant number of lives directly due to 9-11 for your fear focus? You seem worried that the military may just vote themselves all pay raises. May I ask what the standard compensation for a military casualty is compared to one of the 9-11 civilian's? I seem to remember a number of emails circulating on that score. I recommend you check out those numbers. Seems to me that if the administration was so all-fired worried about a vote-from-the-ranks coup, they'd rely on yet another proven Dubya tactic and simply disqualify those voters; as happened in Florida six years ago. Oh, and by the way, should or should not the folks most likely to be casualties in our defense perhaps have some small say in their government? There is already the Hatch Act to limit all government employees’ (including the military) participation in the political process. What more would satisfy you? Tip Out (again) Tip Posted February 13, 2006 7:44 AM
• Ted and Mike, Thanks for your discussion. I favor term limits or at least a limit to the amount of time a politician can stay in federal office or any kind -- limit them to eight years total. I do have a question for Mike. You wrote, "When you have only 49 percent of the electorate voting in national elections there is something vastly wrong. I don't think term limits will solve the problem. The whole electoral process needs to be overhauled. One solution Oregon has come up with and works exceedingly well is vote-by-mail. Voting has increased 10 -15 percent in all elections." Where you have 49 percent, I find 33 percent - what is the 49 percent? Also, how is voting by mail different than absentee ballots? Also, do you think that the million people in the military should be able to elect the people that will maximize the defense budget so they get better toys and bigger raises? It worked under a draft but generates significant problems with an all volunteer military. Term limits are not our only problem but who may vote for what given volunteer military voting to better themselves and not the country is a real problem. Taxpayer Posted February 8, 2006 7:59 AM