The Roots of Discord

Uncivil Civil Discourse

by Patrick J. Shanahan
11/16/03

Much has been made lately of the (obvious) fact that the general tenor of political discourse in this country has been on the decline. We seem not so much content to “agree to disagree” as to castigate each other in the most brutal and nasty terms, to seek partisan advantage over substantive discourse. The rise of Howard Dean has drawn our attention to “The Angry Left,” an almost self-parodying group of frothing, writhing socialists who howl at the moon at the very mention of the President’s name. And we all know about the supposed vast right wing conspiracy that went after Clinton like a pit bull after a toddler.

But how much of this is hype and how much reality? Is politics reaching new lows, or is this just “business as usual” with a sharper media focus?

As in all things, a little historical perspective helps one to understand things. For most of the first 100 years of this nation, as men with significantly differing ideas about the future of the nation contended with each other for control, political discourse was as or more vituperative, nasty, brutal and slanderous than today. Even the days of FDR were a whole lot nastier on both sides of the aisle than we would like to think. But it is true that a rough consensus on most important issues held sway from World War II through the end of the Cold War. Even through the upheavals of Vietnam politics on its own terms did not have quite the nasty tinge about it that it has recently acquired.

Why has this changed? What has led to the apparent sharpening of contending views and the nastiness of the political process? The first contributing factor we have already mentioned: the end of the Cold War. There is nothing like the presence of a clear and present danger to get folks to put aside their “petty” political differences and present a united front. With that overriding focus gone, those “petty” differences become the primary focus of the political process. One would think that 9/11 would have reimposed that consensus, but it is clear that a large number of people do not see the War on Terror as a consensus issue. In fact, for many on the left it is a dividing issue. They see it not so much as a threat as a sign that we need to change our evil ways. It is an unarguable fact that America today has no common, overarching focus to unite us.

A second contributing factor has been the hijacking of the culture by the left. Starting arguably with Brown v. Board of Education, but most certainly with Roe v. Wade, the left has mounted a direct assault on consensus American cultural values. Whether the issue was race relations, feminism, abortion, separation of church and state, gay rights or gun control, the left had no patience for the snail’s pace of democratic cultural evolution and no faith that the American people would arrive at the “right” answers. So one by one they yanked the issues away from the people and placed them in the hands of friendly courts or unchangeable bureaucrats. This short circuiting of democracy has turned out to be brutally divisive. It told millions of Americans that their deeply held beliefs were irrelevant, that they had nothing to add, that the debate was settled, so shut up and go home. Oddly, the people didn’t just throw their hands up and go home. They got mad, not only about the issue, but at the people who shut them off. It is a lot easier to participate in a debate and lose than it is to be told you have no right to participate in the debate. Do not underestimate the frustration and anger this caused “the social right” (many of whom used to be Democrats).

The third piece of this puzzle has been the rise of “the conservative voice.” Liberals love to blame talk radio for divisiveness, and they are on to something. It is difficult to have a political debate when only one side is permitted to talk. The frustration and aggravation caused by the hijacking of the culture was effectively squelched by the mainstream media. Those who dared to differ from the liberal orthodoxy were not permitted access to the tools of communication, except for a few opinion magazines with small circulations. The rise of talk radio and , later, of cable television gave conservatives the opportunity to use mass media outlets to give voice to the frustrations of the silent majority. This, understandably, caught the left off guard and got them riled up. They still have not recovered. Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura gave the left target practice for the sort of personal vindictiveness and hatred now being directed at our President.

The last piece of the puzzle is what I call the “granularization of society.” Advancements in communications technologies and infrastructures has led to the creation of “virtual communities.” The fact that you are reading the article right now means that you are probably a conservative searching out conservative web sites. In all aspects of our lives it has never been easier to find and communicate with people who think the same way you do. Conversely, it has never been easier to avoid those who make you nuts. At all levels of culture - not just politics - we are able to talk to, listen to, “argue” with and congratulate those who have the same opinions as we do. On the way home from work, I have the opportunity to choose between three quality conservative radio talk shows. Why would I tune in to NPR when I have that kind of choice?

This granularization has many positive impacts, but it definitely contributes to the decline in the political tenor. Have you ever been to one of the radical leftie web sites? Man, those people get themselves whipped up. I find it similar to my Navy experience. I was raised in a household where the use of swearing and obscenities was not allowed. When I joined the Navy, I was shocked and appalled to hear the coarseness of everyday language. But by the time my tour was up, I could string a sentence together out of four letter words with the best(?) of them. We adopt the language of our peers. If I hang out at web sites, chat rooms and political functions where it is routine to hear president Bush described as a greedy, manipulative, lying fascist, well, I’m going to eventually use that language too. I know that nobody else at the site will mind. The problem is that the same language carries through to the broader public discourse. All sides in the political debate are vulnerable to this problem, and the result has been a general harshening of the language used.

This is exacerbated by the “Pauline Kael Effect.” Pauline Kael was the New York arts critic who famously declared that Nixon couldn’t possibly have won in 1972, because nobody she knew voted for Nixon! By intellectually clustering together with like-minded people, it is easy for us to fool ourselves into thinking that “everybody” thinks like we do. After all, everybody on the web site or the radio show does. And when “everybody” thinks like we do, then those who don’t must be outcasts, must be “outside the mainstream.” And we know it’s open season on those who are outside the mainstream.

There is no reason to believe that any of these things are likely to change. If 9/11 wasn’t sufficient to provide a new overarching consensus, I do not want to imagine what it would take. And while I would love to imagine a country in which we have taken back the culture, I’m not holding my breath. My guess is that the left will slowly come to terms with the fact that they have to share the media with conservatives, but there is no reason to believe that the perils of granularity will abate. So I say buckle in and enjoy the ride. It’s going to be hot, and ugly and “divisive” out there. But at least we know why.