That\u2019s the sound of political discourse in the United States of America, in the year of our Lord, 2005. It is a rude sound and an unsophisticated philosophy, and it has \u2013 sadly \u2013 infected large numbers of people in both political parties.<\/p>\n
On the left, that sound is the sound of people who utterly refuse to find one positive thing in George W. Bush, or to give him the benefit of the doubt on any issue, any at all. Any charge brought against him is immediately \u201ccredible and true,\u201d and his humanity is completely discounted. He has become so demonized that he is no longer a human being to these people. He is something to hate. And hate\u2026as we all know\u2026is easy.<\/p>\n
Conversely, they utterly refuse to allow any criticism whatsoever, no matter how temperate or constructive, against the Clinton Administration. Every charge is \u201ctrumped up,\u201d every word uttered by a \u201cClintonista\u201d is \u201ccredible and true.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the right, that sound is the sound of people who utterly refuse to find one positive thing in Bill Clinton, or to give him the benefit of the doubt on any issue, any at all. Any charge brought against him is immediately \u201ccredible and true,\u201d and his humanity is completely discounted. He has become so demonized, that he is no longer a human being to these people. He is something to hate. And hate\u2026as we all know\u2026is easy.<\/p>\n
Conversely, they utterly refuse to allow any criticism whatsoever, no matter how temperate or constructive, against the Bush Administration. Every charge is \u201ctrumped up,\u201d every word uttered by a \u201cBushie\u201d is \u201ccredible and true.\u201d<\/p>\n
People, people, people\u2026this has got to stop. I am calling for a time-out. Everyone back in the sandboxes and listen up for a second!<\/p>\n
Admittedly, there are some \u2013 hopefully many \u2013 in both parties who have not completely absorbed the \u201cGrunting Philosophy,\u201d who are able to look at a news story with some small amount of objectivity, who do not immediately spring into heated rhetoric. But\u2026I\u2019d say most of them are not blogging. :-)<\/p>\n
I will admit that sometimes, on the blogs, it is extremely easy to get caught up in the heat of things. You read something and it irks you, particularly if the press seems to be \u201cframing\u201d a story instead of just telling it, then you read a few comments that are rude and obnoxious, and you feel your blood pressure rising, your jaw tenses up and you bang out an intemperate response that, were you face-to-face with your adversary, you might have either held back or made more carefully, and diplomatically. Because it is easy<\/em> to lose your cool and not be in control. Discipline is more difficult. It is easy<\/em> to be a hothead, and I know it, because I am an Irish one, myself. It is easy<\/em> to be cynical, and not subject yourself to a charge of naivete\u2019. It is easy <\/em>to follow the lead of a mob, and easy<\/em> \u2013 so easy<\/em> \u2013 to hate. Oh, it is so much easier to hate than it is to love.<\/p>\n Chesteron said it is easy to be hard; hard to be light.<\/p>\n I can say all of this because I myself, to my shame, have now and then gotten caught up in it. Not for nothing did my friend Joe Marshall<\/a> once refer to me as a \u201cglittering holy terror when annoyed.\u201d (Friend? But Anchoress, he\u2019s a liberal, and a really, really staunch, Bush-hating one.)<\/em><\/p>\n Yeah, he is. But he\u2019s my friend, too. Politically we agree on almost nothing, and we never will, but we have found a way to respect each other, even though Joe is vastly better educated than I, and I am vastly prettier than he.<\/p>\n Lyle, who comments here often, keeps dropping me emails telling me that he does not understand how we can be friendly, because he disagrees with every word I write. But we\u2019ve developed a warm and surprisingly intimate sort of emailing pen-pal relationship.<\/p>\n In the past few days, I have had the pleasure of corresponding with a few liberals who will never, never, never<\/em> move from their positions and who disagree with me and will for ages unto ages, amen. And each time we correspond successfully, and the civility between missives holds, I pray.<\/p>\n I pray that simple civil discourse can somehow enter into the arena of politics, that invective will lose its charms for some, and frenzied, overwrought political theatrics \u2013 whether they involve Randall Terry hanging around the Schindler family in Florida or the agenda-movers surrounding Mrs. Sheehan, in Texas \u2013 can be shut down like the bad farces they are.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been praying for it a lot, this week, because I really am becoming quite worried. The blogs are becoming powerful political forces, and as such, I am thinking that we who manage them must find a way to promote civility in our intra-blog discourses and in our commenters. If political parties on both sides cannot move beyond hands-over-the-ears-la-la-la-I-can\u2019t-hear-you, you freakish #*&@*<\/em> echo chambering, if people do not put the brakes on the \u201cGrunting Philosophy,\u201d the blogosphere, and perhaps the nation, may yet eat its own heart out. I think the blogs can be a force for either building up dialogue and serious debate, or for hastening the devolution of political give-and-take in America. And I am beginning to feel, strongly, that if we bloggers can help re-build constructive discourse, we need to begin to undertake such re-building now. There is not a moment to waste.<\/p>\n The two stories that are getting the most blog-play today, throughout the so-called blogosphere are the stories about the utter failure of the the 9\/11 Commission<\/a> to play straight with information that came to them, and which would have materially changed their final report, and the story of Mrs. Sheehan<\/a>. I am not going to expound on the details of either case \u2013 if you are reading this, you can google and technorati as well as I can, and you can see the lines drawn on both sides, for yourself.<\/p>\n What I am going to do is ask the blogs \u2013 both sides \u2013 (which are, contrary to the opinion of some managed by mostly intelligent, educated people) to take both stories and eliminate the noise, eliminate the knee-jerk suspicions and raised eyebrows. I\u2019m asking the blogs to suppress the urge to bellow at \u201cthose fiends!\u201d on the \u201cother side\u201d of each story and consider what the story, finally, means for America. I\u2019m asking the bloggers to, having hacked through the clinging vines, obfuscation and media frames and narratives, look at the very serious and fundamental questions that exist within each story.<\/p>\n In the Able Danger story, let us ask this: Aside from all of the political noise and hyperventilation, the 9\/11 Commission now admits that it actually omitted from its final report information that illustrated a specific failure in intelligence gathering that \u2013 had it been included \u2013 would have materially changed the thrust and tenor of its report,<\/em> and seriously called into question a rather bold conflict-of-interest involving a panel member. Since the 9\/11 Commission admits it, and has thereby destroyed the credibility of its own report, is it not in the interest of the country to determine how, and by whom, the decision to omit this finding came to be, considering the Commission\u2019s cost to the nation in terms of both hard dollars and public angst? We can stipulate that neither President Clinton nor President Bush \u201ccaused\u201d 9\/11. With that stipulation, can we join together to call for an investigation that is in the best interests of the country?<\/p>\n As to the Sheehan story, the question is a simple one made more difficult by the extreme emotional foundation of the story, and it is this: Beyond the emotion, beyond the spin which \u2013 it must be acknowledged \u2013 is quite possibly a help and an amusement to the very people who killed Casey Sheehan, people who would be frankly delighted to see America pull out of Iraq and render the deaths of 1800 soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens utterly meaningless<\/em>, beyond all of that, what will a second meeting with President Bush bring to Mrs. Sheehan that the first meeting did not, why does she need<\/em> a second meeting when other grieving mothers and fathers seem content with one, and how are her words and actions affecting the morale and safety of the 100,000 other young men and women who are still in Iraq?<\/p>\n Those are the questions \u2013 all the rest of it is sound and fury, signifying nothing.<\/p>\n The blogosphere is fun, and fast, and furious and funny, fierce and frenzied \u2013 it can be a tremendous boon, but not if \u2013 in the course of our dashed-off conceits and constructs, we lose sight of each other\u2019s humanity. What I saw today \u2013 on many different blogs, both liberal and conservative \u2013 were commentors (or emailers) who crossed clear lines of simple decency<\/em>, with no suggestions that they \u201crein it in\u201d from blog-hosts. In several cases, bloggers under particularly vicious attack felt they had no recourse but to threaten to go after their attacker\u2019s livelihoods, as the emailers and commenters had launched their attacks from their places of business. Having read the vituperative emails, I cannot say I blame the bloggers for doing so, but on the other hand, when we\u2019ve reached that point, when such clear lines are routinely crossed and the victims of the invective feel that action must be taken which can prove very severe, then things are literally like dried tinder waiting for the right spark \u2013 a dangerous situation.<\/p>\n So, really \u2013 there are two more questions:<\/p>\n Bloggers need to ask themselves if their rhetoric is so inflammatory and undisciplined that it could possibly inspire a hateful spark that could mean danger for another human being. Blog commenters need to ask themselves if they are ready to pay for a fast unleashing of pent up hate and frustration with their jobs or their liberty.<\/p>\n There is no excuse for writing to anyone using vulgar language. If it is all you can do, then restrain yourself \u2013 go get a cup of coffee and calm down. And there is no excuse for blogging like Al Pacino on crack.<\/p>\n I once heard Peggy Noonan on a panel show say \u201cDecent people may disagree and still be decent people!\u201d I have never forgotten that, because it was so obvious, and so true, and yet\u2026<\/p>\n
\n
\nIn the desert
\nI saw a creature, naked, bestial,
\nWho, squatting upon the ground,
\nHeld his heart in his hands,
\nAnd ate of it.
\nI said, \u201cIs it good, friend?\u201d
\n\u201cIt is bitter \u2013 bitter\u201d, he answered,
\n\u201cBut I like it
\nBecause it is bitter,
\nAnd because it is my heart.\u201d<\/em>
\n \u2013 Stephen Crane<\/p>\n