This sounds like a contradiction in terms. If you want to win - and nothing is more important than winning - then you must do everything to denigrate and ruin the reputation of your opponent. This nasty politics has been with us for a long time. However, yesterday's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama proves that nasty is not always the best approach. Nice guys finish first.
All the journalists, pundits and commentators said that McCain was angry and Obama was calm, that McCain was throwing insults and Obama deflected them. that McCain's face kept changing colors as his frustration grew and Obama was unperturbed. This is why they claim Obama "won" and McCain "lost." A superficial look may bring you to this conclusion. But Obama "won" for a more important reason: he emphasized civility.
McCain followed the tried and true approach of Atwater and Karl Rove - the Republican approach. The Republican approach may be summarize with one word: "Attack." Distortion? Yes. Smear? Yes. Lies? Yes. Character assassination? Yes. Whatever it takes. To paraphrase an old expression everything is fair in love and politics.
Michael Seitzman summarizes the Republican approach neatly:
Mccain and Palin and their ilk don't laugh. They patronize. They don't smile, they snicker. They don't debate, they denigrate. They don't talk, they condescend. They don't argue, they ridicule. There is a nastiness, a mean-spiritedness, a smug certitude, and a profound and baseless arrogance seething from both of them. These aren't leaders. They're not even grownups. They're not a team of mavericks, they're a team of schmendricks (Yiddish. Means someone who can't succeed but thinks he can. Also means penis).
From the very beginning Obama was urged to attack. When Hillary unleashed some bad attacks, he was again urged to attack. He resisted. When McCain went wild with attacks, he resisted. When Palin was chosen, all the Republicans were excited because here was someone who loves to attack. And attack she did. Obama resisted.
Friends of Obama are still encouraging him to attack. But by now he has proven that his civil approach works. The same people who were encouraging McCain to attack are now saying that he "lost" because he attacked too much. No, McCain did not "lose" because of his wild accusations but Obama "won" because of his civility.
As Obama says we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Obama has introduced us to civil politics, a politics that will make all our other interactions more civil. Just what we need.
Civil Politics
Civil and political rights
Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
•
Characteristics
Political rights include:
• Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy)
• Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
Civil rights may include:
• Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety and to make sure people were not forced into labor.
• Protection from private (non-government) discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
• Equal access to health care, education, culture, etc.
Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). Political rights are considered to be negative rights, whereas civil rights belong to the positive rights category.
Guarantees of rights
Civil and political rights were among the first to be recognized and codified. In many countries, they are constitutional rights and are included in a bill of rights or similar document. They are also defined in international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are often considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1774 A Summary View of the Rights of British America that "a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
Custom also plays a role. Implied rights are rights that courts may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom; one example is the right to privacy in the United States.
The question of who civil and political rights apply to is a subject of controversy. In many countries, citizens have greater protections against infringement of rights than non-citizens; at the same time, civil and political rights are considered to be universal rights that apply to all persons.
When civil and political rights are not guaranteed to all as part of equal protection of laws, social unrest may ensure. Civil rights movements over the last 60 years have resulted in an extension of civil and political rights.
Problems and analysis
Questions about civil and political rights have frequently emerged. For example, to what extent should the government intervene to protect individuals from infringement on their rights by other individuals, or from corporations — e.g., in what way should employment discrimination in the private sector be dealt with?
Political theory deals with civil and political rights. Robert Nozick and John Rawls expressed competing visions in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Other influential authors in the area include Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld and Jean Edward Smith.
Politics
Politics is about conflicting visions and interests. Conflict is essential in a healthy democracy. But when America faces vast challenges at home and dangers abroad, the optimum degree of conflict shrinks. It becomes ever more important that citizens and political parties work together, trust each other, and compromise for the common good. Over the last twenty years, however, our leaders, our political parties, and our media outlets have become more polarized, strident, and moralistic (i.e., excessively concerned with morality, and certain about their own virtue). When political opponents are demonized rather than debated, compromise and cooperation become moral failings and people begin to believe that their righteous ends justify the use of any means.
This website is a collaborative effort launched at a bipartisan interdisciplinary workshop on "moralistic politics" held at Princeton University in May, 2007. Our goal is to promote "civil politics," by which we mean politics in which power and ideas are hotly contested but opponents are respected as fellow citizens who are assumed to be sincere in their beliefs. We hope to publicize the lastest research in moral psychology and political science to help Americans understand why people are so prone to demonize others and form hostile, self-righteous coalitions. If you agree with us that America needs more civil politics, we urge you to sign the pledge, learn more about moral and political psychology on our resources page (or by watching this 18 minute video), and then take further action to model and promote civil politics in your own community.
Civil politics
Despite Gandhi beliefs which seemed to work in India, in a fight against Imperialism, America has never had a history of being civil in politics. It has always had the appearance of a bar room brawl. That has always been the hallmarks of American elections at every level since the first elections. The demand that we all be nice to one another is a new attitude, and maybe a better future option in the long run, but certainly not at the present.
It takes two rather reasonable people to carry out a nice discussion. In the US it’s almost impossible because of the nature of our politics, the money from the big corporations and other special interests buying politicians’, lobbyist, media outlets. (See if this fits the actions of the Medical Insurance Cartels, and its resistance to the Public option).
“Political forms have always been a mask behind which an owning class has sought to protect from invasion the authority which ownership confers, and, when the political forms have endangered the rights of ownership, the class in possession has always sought to adjust them to its needs.[Harold D. Laswell, 1902-1978]”
Then there are the nuts on radio like Russ Limbough and TV like Carl Beck, and the fact that often the more aggressive opponents are not looking for real discussion, but simply a statement of their position and any logical facts by the opponent will be simply be ignored. They try very hard to engage you in meaningless questions to throw you off track. Good and rational people are at a disadvantage in this situation, and tend to back away to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, when that occurs, it appears that the other, more aggressive side is somehow right and won the argument.
“Since it has been agreed amongst men that to cheat or deceive one’s fellow creatures is a mean and criminal action, there has been sought for, and invented, a term that might soften the appellation of the thing, and the word, which undoubtedly has been chosen for the purpose, is Politics. [Frederick II, 1712-1786].”
“Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds. [Henry Adams, 1838-1918]”
“I recognize no moral law in politics. Politics is a game, in which every sort of trick is permissible, and in which the rules are constantly being changed by the players to suit themselves. [Adult Hitler [1889-1945]”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. [H.L. Mencken, 1880 – 1924].”
“In politics, an absurdity is not an obstacle. [Napoleon]”
“In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics”. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. [George Orwell, 1903-1950]”
What Happened to Civil Politics?
I'm a huge fan of talk radio and thankfully I have access to local and syndicated liberal and conservative talk shows. I'll be the first to admit I listen to the liberals (or so called "Progressives" )like Randi Rhodes and Laura Flanders as well as the idiots like Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken. I also listen to conservatives like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as well as local liberal/progressive and conservative hosts and shows.
The biggest difference I notice between conservative and liberal radio is that the conservatives tend to talk about issues - the war in Iraq , troubles with Iran , the illegal immigrant epidemic and so on. Liberals, on the other hand, spend their time on the microphone bashing President Bush and any other conservative or Republican they can think of.
Instead of spending time talking about real problems and what needs to be done they spend their time creating parody radio ads (which I'll admit are amusing) and attacking conservatives personally.
I can remember years ago that politics used to be civil and I've read books about the political climate of America in the 150 years. Believe it or not, politicians could disagree on the issues before them based on their political beliefs, get the job done and then have a polite and even friendly dinner with each other.
Politicking was reserved for the Oval Office, the floor of the House and Senate and every other place that our elected representatives got together to discuss issues facing the nation and their individual constituents.
During the early years the papers played a critical role in politics. Opinion and editorial (Op/Ed) writers as well as political cartoonists had fun with a particular politician's decisions (and occasional caricature of the politician) but in the end none of it was overly abrasive and they did not necessarily attack the character of the politician except for a few cases for both liberals and conservatives when the politician really deserved it.
What happened to those days? What happened to the days when two senators, one a Republican and one a Democrat, could debate a law on the floor of the Senate and then, at the end of the day, have a good meal and a good laugh together? It was the advent of politically slanted radio.
Now don't get me wrong - I support freedom of speech which gives anyone the right to sit down in front of a microphone and share his or her opinion. What I personally dislike is whining, sniveling idiots that think they've somehow been wronged by the opposite political party and spend their time complaining about specific people and impugning their character.
I am a firm believer in a simple concept: if you are going to complain about something you had better be prepared to offer a solution. Take this very article. I'm complaining about the total lack of respect most often demonstrated by liberal radio hosts and later on in this very same article I will offer a solution.
To simply complain for the sake of complaining drives me absolutely batty. It serves no purpose other than to inflame those listening.
Many people, though, take it to the next level - not content with simple complaining they've taken to attacking the character of the people they complain about. Don't believe me? Just spend 15 minutes listening to some of the crap that comes out of the mouths of those hosting Air America Radio shows. All complaining, all attacking, no solutions.
I find it interesting that the complainers and attackers all seem to be affiliated with the liberals or progressives. I'm not sure why that is; perhaps they're disenfranchised because we have a conservative controlled government. Regardless of the reason, liberal talk show hosts seem to spend their time complaining and attacking while conservative talk show hosts spend their time talking about issues and what to do about them.
So.like I mentioned before, here's my solution. Turn off the radio when the whiners come on and let the radio stations know that you've turned them off. Also let the radio stations know that you prefer to listen to hosts that talk about issues, problems and solutions - not just complain about issues and offer no solutions.
And here's my advice to anyone from the man on the street to the man in the big Oval Office wanting to complain about our government or government officials - keep politics where it belongs and keep it civil. Don't become so personally involved that you see someone that doesn't believe in the same principals as you as a mortal enemy. We are all Americans and are all here for the same reason.
What happens when we forget that point and start taking politics personally? I'll give you a hint - it begins with a 'J' and ends with an 'ihad'. It's not that far of a leap - maybe a few degrees or few years - from someone so personally against the beliefs of another that they'll do anything to impugn his or her character making the jump to physically attacking the other person.