This week’s spin around the Sunday Circuit was dominated – oh that’s too harsh a word – was motivated by and devoted to “civility” in political debate. All of them – This Week, Fox News Sunday, Meet the Press, Face the Nation – ran with the theme of “civility” in politics. In other words, it was among the most ridiculous displays I have seen in quite some time.
The Sunday Circuit is good for very little even when its at its best and typically only useful for generating sound-bites and creating a buzz around a particular topic. The players take the bait and sound off on the topic du jour only to be misquoted, misrepresented, and misunderstood in the days that follow. Today’s endeavor was a bit of a departure from the usual happenings and themes, but still served the same general purpose – throw a few thoughts at the wall, hope a few stick, and pray that the ones that bounce back at you are the soft and squishy type rather than those with rough edges.
With the tragedy of the Tuscon shooting still fresh in the minds of all Americans, the theme of the day was “civility.” While I certainly appreciate the effort, I was taken aback by two things: 1.) Since when does “civility” = bipartisanship? 2.) Even with a clear thematic shift visibly evident, the people cast to play the leading roles were still many of the same characters that take up the Sunday morning ritual every week. How does this in any way demonstrate a real or concerted effort to “change?”
Yes, I know there is something to be said for seeing old foes playing nice with one another, but wouldn’t the message have been more poignant if the day was devoted to those who engage in political commentary and debate from a more sensible perspective? Couldn’t it have been a day to honor those who were setting an example BEFORE the tragedy in Arizona ever took place?
Perhaps the reason for not going in that direction is that there are simply no such people out there in the political universe. Or, maybe the reason that no such day of devotion and exaltation was forthcoming is because these shows and much of the political world revolve around debate – around conflict. Without it, there would be nothing to discuss; and more importantly, there would be no one there to watch it.
The reality is simple. The environment of political debate, discourse, or whatever you want to call it, simply does not lend itself to warm and fuzzy pats on the back, big overly cooperative feel good demonstrations, or elementary and symbolic group hugs or shows of unity. It is political debate after all.
There are very real ideological differences between and among the parties to said discussion and those differences are from time to time going to foster “heated” exchange. Sure, most if not all could use a hearty dose of patience and tolerance with and for opposing views, but does that mean both parties must abandon core principles and positions to come together in bipartisan bliss just for the interest of fostering civility? Is bipartisanship through a devaluation or deconstruction of political ideology really the price we must pay for a peaceable political conversation? I think not, and I fail to see how “bipartisanship” through civility is the necessary or proper end here.
It seems to me that much of the talk about civility is nothing more than a clever and manipulative attempt to whitewash the blowback from a terribly unfortunate tragedy purely and solely for the purpose of political gain. Just look at who stands to gain from the ridiculous connection of civility and bipartisanship. Is it the ideological Right that just took control of the House of Representatives in an election where its candidates ran on a platform of change? Or is it the Left – many of whom were responsible for spinning this tragedy into a political blame game and vitriolic hate agent?
If your answer is more prone to align itself with the latter, wouldn’t it be sound political calculation to frame the new “debate” as one that promotes “civility” as a means to lead to bipartisanship? Wouldn’t it be prudent to make one interchangeable with and inseverable from the other?
Thinking that such a political maneuver is both clever and unconscionable, I am inclined to reject the notion that this horrific tragedy must serve as a “wakeup call” for all persons politically inclined. Instead, I view the tragedy as just that – a tragedy; a horrific act committed by a terribly sick and disturbed individual. I see the aftermath and the blow-back the tragedy created as a teachable moment for all Americans politically inclined as a caution to avoid rushing to judgment or carelessly engaging in the act of attributing and distributing blame for the benefit of an ideology or political position.
I wholeheartedly reject any notion or assertion that this tragedy must in any way lead to bipartisanship. If bipartisanship emerges as a result of a more focused and less hostile discussion then I would obviously welcome such a development; but assuming civility and bipartisanship are synonymous is putting the cart before the horse as it connects by compulsion a potential result with what only can be described as nothing more than a possible contributing factor.
Civility by its very definition means “Formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.” Nowhere in that definition is the word bipartisanship, and no manipulation of said definition or exploitation of this tragedy will change that. Bipartisanship is the byproduct of two political parties finding mutual ground on an issue or subject matter. If that happens to be “civility”, then I am all for it; but to assume that civility must mean bipartisanship on every issue is just taking that logic a step too far.
————-
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Cartoon Via Clay Bennett
[...] Civility = Bipartisanship? [...]
[...] Republican Redefined has an essay on political civility and bipartisanship. [...]