The post below on civility got picked up by Atrios (who is more usually kept busy with his hobby of not linking NTodd). Hence it was seen by many who ordinarily do not visit this foul rag and bone shop of the Internets, including Colin Rule, who wrote:
The New York Times had an interesting article over the weekend talking about the tense stalemate that exists between liberals and conservatives in everyday interactions these days. Much of what was in there was fluff, in my opinion, but the blogosphere reaction is very interesting. (warning: strong language).
We're going to have a long row to hoe to restore any semblance of civil political dialogue in this country any time soon.
I'm glad Colin finds the post interesting. Though I'm a bit dubious... perhaps it's just the reflexive paranoia, the phat doobies talking, but I'm afraid he finds it interesting in much the same way entemologists find ant poop interesting -- as an object of study, a curious phenomenon to be smeared on a slide, slung under the microscope, and then hilariously pissed on in the lab with the boys after you break the padlock on the fridge to get into the pure grain alcohol.
Or perhaps not. Anyway, just to set the record straight, I wasn't responding directly to the NYTimes article in the Fashion & Style Section, because ordinarily I don't read that part of the paper, for much the same reason I don't listen to Coldplay: simple human dignity. As I explained, it was all Roy's fault. Tac was the one who linked it, and as I have been at pains to explain (mainly on the plain), Tac is a dick.
But that is nitpickery. I have more substantial responses to Rule's observations.
First, I'm genuinely curious as to how we might "restore" a "semblance of civil political dialogue in this country." When did this beast, "civil political dialogue," ever stalk the earth? Honestly, when did we enjoy this paradise from which we are fallen? I submit that trying to quantify whether or not we are more or less civil than in the past is silly. The real questions lie in identifying the real stakes of conflict in any particular historical moment and looking at who stands to gain or lose by doing or saying what, and why, not by taking out a subjective yardstick and trying to use it to measure intangibles. Are we more or less "civil" than in the days of, say, Ward Cleaver and Medgar Evers? Isn't that an awfully stupid question?
This leads into the larger point. I'd take the proponents of "civility" seriously if they would ever make a rigorous case for it, which they never do. Yes, we should all be nice to each other. We should also all share our stuff, and eat whole grains, and be nice to the elderly, and make sure all kids have enough to eat, and not say "fuck" all the time, and not smoke, or watch "Saw" movies, or start bullshit wars -- but we do. Calling for more "civility" boils down to wishing everyone would always be nice to each other: it's no skin off your ass to advocate for it because nobody's ever going to ask you to specify just what the hell you're really after, except maybe for some nobody blogger who will proudly admit he's an ill-mannered jerk. But then again, positioning yourself as Captain Civility also does nobody any actual good, ever, except insofar as with all forms of self-pleasure, it kinda feels OK, at least up until the moment you realize you left the Kleenex in the kitchen.
Seriously. We who openly argue against "civility" as a cardinal virtue, even the cardinal virtue, are in the minority by a long chalk. So. If everyone and his Uncle Susan are lamenting and hair-tearing over how very incivil we've all become, why is the world so very fucking incivil? You have the power, civility champs! The overwhelming numerical advantage is yours. Seize the day! Storm the barricades of the Rude! Stamp out the irksome discourse of the Snotty and Snide!
There, you see, is the rub. The reason "civility" is always everybody's favorite lost cause is because nobody ever pays a price for being a total fucking hypocrite about it. Here's a hot one. Ask anyone if they like negative campaign ads. Oh, gosh no. they're just annoying. But why then do we see so many of them every October...? Because they fucking work. A politician who refuses to go negative is a fool. Negative campaign ads and slander will end when they are no longer effective, and not a second sooner.
If everyone who laments a lack of "civility" would stop pissing and moaning and call instead for the restoration -- no, the institution -- of something else, then we might make some progress. That something else is honesty.
We don't suffer from a "civility" deficit. We suffer from a truth deficit. There's no better example of this than the latest bullshit about Kerry's remarks in California. Everyone who's looked at this for a second knows he wasn't insulting the troops, but the entire national media and our whole fucking national leadership are in this phony motherfucking tizzy because "Johnny Kerry said something bad!" It's a goddamn disgrace. We're a fucking nation of 3rd graders, always running to some imaginary Teachur beacuse someone said a naughty word and we want to shave off 2% of Democratic turnout in the Ohio 13th. It's insane.
Bullshit "civility" has run amok in 21st century America. "Civility" is a club to beat someone over the head with. And it's the modern GOP who swings the biggest, dumbest specimen of such blunt instruments nowadays.
So "civility" can go fuck itself. Raise the banner of "honesty" instead and maybe I'll salute. Though it'd help if you also gave me some whiskey into the bargain. Just sayin'.