Commentary
When political rhetoric brings out the worst in us
by Gordon C. StewartOur nation is being poisoned by inflammatory rhetoric from both sides of the political aisle. How else does one explain the sending of a used condom to a Minnesota congresswoman, or the phone message left on Rep. Keith Ellison's answering machine: "Timothy McVeigh said dead government workers are good government workers. Goodbye, Sambo"?
And that's just here in Minnesota.
The success of a democratic republic depends upon the civility of its citizens and respect for the offices of elected officials, regardless of whether one agrees with the officials themselves. Unless we clean up the language of our civil discourse, we are inviting unimaginable tragedy.
According to a Harris Interactive Poll taken this month, "more than 20 percent believe [President Obama] was not born in the United States, that he is 'the domestic enemy the U.S. Constitution speaks of,' that he is racist and anti-American, and that he 'wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.' Fully 20 percent think he is 'doing many of the things that Hitler did,' while 14 percent believe 'he may be the anti-Christ' and 13 percent think 'he wants the terrorists to win.' " Though I distrust the percentages of any poll, whatever the real percentages of such views, this cocktail is lethal.
But it is not new. The taste is all too familiar. I grew up in another time when the civil discourse had been poisoned.
Sen. Joseph McCarthy was dumping poison -- instigating a national witch hunt for communists and communist sympathizers in government, the entertainment industry and labor unions. In the spring of 1954, McCarthy's crusade of insinuation, innuendo and guilt by association was brought to an end by journalist Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welsh, attorney for the U.S. Army.
Sharpening his teeth to devour his adversary by character assassination, McCarthy reminded Welch that one of Welch's colleagues had belonged to an organization suspected of communist sympathies. Welch replied with words we all need to hear again: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Welch's words took our breath away back then. And they still do. A sense of decency is the only thing that will strengthen us to escape the politics of assassination and allow us to seek solutions in a difficult time. In Murrow's words, "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from the fearful."
Painting the president of the United States or members of Congress with McCarthy's sloppy brush as domestic enemies -- let alone as the Antichrist -- gives deranged minds a license to send used condoms or hateful voicemails. Or even to plot an assassination.
As a pastor I rue the use of Christian scripture to stoke the fires of fear and hate. The Christian life takes evil seriously, but loud spirituality is an oxymoron. All the great religions hold some version of the essential tenet expressed in the first letter of John, which, incidentally is the only place in all of Christian Scripture that the idea of the Antichrist appears. "He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still."
Where are the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welsh now? We need them again.
----
Gordon C. Stewart is pastor of Shepherd of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Chaska, a regular guest commentator on "All Things Considered," and moderator of the "Shepherd of the Hill Dialogues: examining critical public issues locally and globally."
Comments (7)
While I suppose I shouldn't discount the opinion of a minister on this matter, I confess I would be far more interested in what a psychologist had to say about this phenomina. I'm prone to think of this as more of a psychological matter than a moral one.
In a world in which FBI profilers can tell you whether Ted Bundy preferred Wheaties or Cheerios for breakfast, I find it unusual that no one out there can, or will, sketch out our current political dilemma in psychological terms. I think this would be just as useful as having a minister plead with us to moderate our rhetoric.
What a pleasure that psychology is being asked its view. And we do have much to offer. Contrary, perhaps, to common belief, psychologists don't just have opinions. Central to our study and craft is the requirement that we base our analysis on evidence. Even more basic is the definition of the problem the solution for which we are striving. Right up front, it's important to realize that morality defines the questions we raise and the problems we see.
And what this psychologist sees - oversimplifying, of course - is the emergence of reactions basic to our early evolutionary history when enemies appeared directly in our sights and life-saving reaction had to be run or fight, a decision that must be made on a moment's notice. One way to mobilize action today is to evoke the fear that taps into that primal response. Therefore, calling on scary words or thoughts is useful in producing the desired response in listeners. Words like racist, anti-American, economic collapse, terrorism, dictatorial power, Hitler, antichrist fly right past the problem-solving, decision-making frontal cortex of the brain to action designed to destroy the enemy.
So, given the focus on scare words, how can we know what is the problem being addressed? That can only be left to guess work. Blinded by fear and hatred, we avoid facing the complexity of the real issues before us and there are real issues.
Now for morality: Gordon Stewart's fairly direct moral statement is that the good of the community is paramount. An alternative morality is that the good of individuals watching out for themselves is paramount. Now therein lies the possibility of stating real problems and looking for real solutions. But we can't get there as long as we fail to move beyond the behaviors that were right for us millennia ago and get down to the complex issues that urgently face us today.
Behind even the primitive fight or flight response is the need to control. Lives depend on it. So now the practical question is where can we find control over our own lives. Those who use scare tactics would lead us to believe that anger and consequent violence will give us control. The fact is, they are wrong. What they evoke is high blood pressure, violence breeding violence, and avoidance of another piece of our innate supply of reactions empathy. Putting all this together, what do we have? A false sense of control that leads us away from real solutions and into anger which, unless utilized in a fruitful way, creates physiological problems for us, and rounds of verbal or physical violence that can lead only to destruction.
There are some signs to watch for when there is the attempt to use us to accomplish someone else's ends. Words. Scare words, calling-names words. Unless we get to requiring a clear definition of what is being asked of us, we can't be involved in the solution. Therefore, it's fair, I think, to conclude that the poll results to which Gordon Stewart refers reflect chaos, out of control energy. Anger is an important part of our human potential, but only if it is controlled, like the pilot light that serves our domestic water heaters. But uncontrolled it's like escaping gas in our home, waiting for the spark that will blow everything up.
Now I'd love to hear from a linguist and a political scientist.
These are difficult times, but surely no more so than the late 1940s and early 1950s, to which Rev. Stewart refers. We Americans have a long history of political bombast - of not being very nice to one another in public, of giving that peculiar doctrine of Original Sin yet more empirical evidence (raw, and daily) of its likelihood.
Rev. Stewart is right to be concerned about media-carried - and just plain - viciousness in the aftermath of the health care bill's passage. We surely want to hear from psychologists and linguists to get at this issue, but we don't want to leave ministers out!
My advanced degrees are in religion and politics. Putting my political science hat on, I would be surprising, wouldn't it, if this current torrent of offensive behavior didn't have something to do with the sea change in our political life embodied in the two leaders of the health care fight: our first black president and our first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is social and political change, big time, as is the communications revolution that is something like a permanent megaphone for everything we decide to say and "express" - the gentle stuff, and the not so gentle stuff.
I appreciate the insights in this article. I've also been wondering who is doing the research and analysis that I trust will eventually link the high cost of political campaigns and the fundraising techniques necessary to support them to the current state of political rhetoric? Love and fear are the most powerful ways to motivate people; love takes personal knowledge. The lack of limits on political spending inevitably must lead to fearmongering rhetoric in order to keep the dollars flowing in. Political discourse and policy are in bondage to a system that must keep people on the knife's edge of violence in order to take their money.
I appreciate this topic and these comments. Thank you.
I appreciated both the insight Rev. Stewart brings and the thoughtful, rational discourse it provoked, provided by qualified, polite writers. Thank you to all!
One can only envy Rev, Stewart's comfort zone which apparently excludes the world as it actually exists. In less serene parts of the country,a dozen lawsuits are working their way through the courts - including one brought by a former prosecutor of Virginia - to force Obama to produce the long form birth certificate (which contain hospital / Dr. details etc) however, instead of producing the document Obama simply puts his lawyers on the case and fights it. The state of Hawaii now claims it cannot locate the document and weeks later a government official in Kenya proudly announced they have documentation as to his birth there.The American Media has been a disgrace in it's habit of ignoring major issues which might create a problem for their favored man. Obama's paternal grandmother who has always insisted she was at his birth in Kenya was dutifully ignored by the media here when she arrived for the swearing in. The discourse on this subject is bound to be heated considering a president with such unprecedented attributes e.g. his long time friend and advisor, Bill Ayres and wife, who bombed the WHITE HOUSE in 1973 (front page NY TIMES). Ayres recently said his only regret was not having thrown more bombs. His wife, incidentally,planted the bomb. Obama launched his presidental bid in Ayres home.One might argue guilt by association is not valid but questions about his circle of friends and advisors are. Somehow Reagan's friends did not include people who bombed the capitol.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
