Rhetoric detached from morality harms people and societies.
Political talk has had an ugly side, but things are getting worse. Hateful talk is no longer underground, but practiced openly and shamelessly. Mainstream politicians are more willing to tolerate association with fringe rhetoric.
Why is this so?
Is There a Breakdown in Shared Ethics?
It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.
Some research suggests that Americans share many common values, but this research obscures differences in how we prioritize values when goods come into conflict. For example, most American value personal liberty, but when it comes to health care many Americans place a lower priority on this than on a strong social safety net. Those that make the opposite choice, valuing liberty over services, seem cruel to the other camp.
They agree on the values, but have fundamental differences on how to apply them.
Persistent and pervasive ethical differences can begin to strain the republic's politics by discouraging compromise. When the gap between our assumptions and our opponents grows too large, our opponents become not just wrong, but perverse or wicked. Nobody hastens to compromise with the immoral!
The results are bad when pressed to an extreme. Some Americans will not even listen to a fair exposition of moral views with which they disagree, even if the majority of the nation believes them.
American Christians should not behave this way. Jesus called us to love our enemies in a nation ruled by cruel Caesars. Any religion that can love Tiberius can surely find room to love Obama or Gingrich.
Seven Suggestions for Political Discourse
Living in a republic means making political decisions. From Socrates to Reagan, wise political heads have given good advice on how to conduct oneself in public life. I don't always live up to their wisdom, but these ideas are worthy goals.
1. Be slow to speak.
The new media environment lends itself to haste. We size up a candidate or a policy in the blink of an eye and few encourage us to reevaluate the situation. "Blinking" may sometimes be necessary in a crisis, but it is a horrific way to form our general principles and opinions.
2. Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.
One bad reaction to a toxic political environment is to develop mushy and "inoffensive" public opinions, but it is hard to talk to people who will not say what they really think. We should argue hard for our ideas in the public square and see how things turn out.
Arguing forcefully helps minority opinions get a hearing. If we relegate ourselves to safe discourse, the tendency is to repeat what the present cultural power brokers accept with small variations.
3. Attacking ideas is different than attacking people.
Ideas have no feelings, but people do. Hurtful talk about actual people, and the President and Glenn Beck are real people, ought to be merited by their actual behavior. We must weigh harm done to their persons against harm they are doing. While it ought to be legal to call the President the "Antichrist," nobody should do it without overwhelming proof.
An actual Hitler or Stalin (in the modern context one thinks North Korea's Dear Leader) is a worthy target for pointed personal barbs, but the local zoning board member rarely is. American politicians are often wrong, but it is hard to think of any that merit comparison to the Taliban or to the present Chinese oligarchs.
Those are real bad guys.
4. Authenticity is useful, but posturing is not.
Few things are more irritating than reading a piece that seems written to get the writer "good-guy" points with the establishment in his or her own group. This happens on both the left and right and is a temptation for all of us. Instead of saying what we think, we write to curry favor with our betters in hopes of praise or reward.
