A Fight For Civility

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
            Albert Einstein

In an interview with the BBC, Kate Riley, the opinion page editor of the Seattle Times, suggested that the nature of opinions in media is a sum positive.  While she recognizes the “trolls” who clog up message boards and comment sections of online newspaper articles with contributions that are unproductive at best and hateful at worst, something better is emerging.  Ms. Riley might have a sense that she is producing an approach that embraces both conservative and liberal points of view and that her writers are embracing the best of “old-school civil discourse”, I’m not sure that has filtered down to the reader and commenter. 

When I started this blog, I wanted to create a forum where ideas and political opinions were discussed in a respectful way.  To do this, I’ve attempted to do various things.  I always refer to people as Mr. or Ms. or by their earned title.  I’ve stayed away from ad hominem attacks that tear individuals down.  I’ve tried to follow the axiom that it is best to disagree without being disagreeable.  Unfortunately, this is not valued in too many other places.  Social critic Neil Postman spoke of the sensational way in which news is presented – valuing the knee-jerk, emotional response over the intelligent consideration of issues and ideas.   

My view is exclusive to the American media scene as foreign papers and media outlets provide less a venue for reader comment and contributions.  The fact that the American media has so capitulated to it, it is easy to see some trends.  Throughout the history of our Republic, there have been two components to one’s ability to speak out – first was one’s position or expertise and the second was one’s ability to stand up in public.  It is the second category that typically included the “common citizen.”  In town halls from Maine to California, citizens stood up amongst their peers to question or challenge officials or experts on various matters.  Their comments were shaped by personal conviction and community standards of what was considered appropriate or not.  In short, such a public display of opinion prevented the most boorish and offensive behavior.   

The mass media and people’s access to it has greatly democratized the ability to speak and voice one’s convictions.  Still, for every person who does so responsibly through comments or their own blog, hundreds of others unleash a mind boggling barrage of depravity and coarseness.  What is more, they do so without the public indignation and pressure that used to govern society.  Some newspapers have disabled comments for their articles and that is likely a wise course of action.  My concern is whether we are reaching a point of no return.  English writer Samuel Johnson wrote that once civility is discarded, “there remains little hope of return to kindness and decency.”  I’m tempted to delve into the same level of pessimism but that cannot be the end. 

If there is a way to end this bâtonnage of rudeness and near psychopathic levels of thoughtlessness, it might be a simple return to the restraints of a previous age.  We cannot turn back the technological clock – we’ve already consumed the fruit – but perhaps we can reassess how we approach and experience it.  It is imperative that we first reacquaint ourselves with our values and virtues.  On that basis, we must become more critical of the technologies that assail us in the future.  By doing this, it might be possible to follow the words of Mevlana Rumi, the 13^th-century Persian Muslim poet and philosopher who said, “Let’s rise above this animalistic behavior and be kind to one another.”

The Need to Reverse the Prevailing Winds

This past week, I came across an old episode of Firing Line – the William F. Buckley show where he interviewed various prominent figures.  The show paired the noted conservative thinker with the famed philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky.  The topic of conversation was the Vietnam War and the appropriateness of the conflict.  As I watched these two learned individuals, it dawned on me just how far we have digressed in our current political arena.  It is clear that what journalists expect of themselves and their audience has changed radically over the years. 

William F. Buckley was my political inspiration; the man who shook me from my general ambivalence and provided a prise de conscience to the importance of intellectualism and conservatism.  In his show, he was unapologetically adroit and demanded that his audience keep up, refusing to minimize or trivialize his subject matter.  The people he invited were equally demanding, speaking at the highest levels.  Together, Mr. Buckley and his guests represented the highest form of political and social discourse.  Additionally, the erudite, conservative thinker also had a shockingly biting sense of humor that left his audience wondering if they actually heard correctly.  On one occasion, Mr. Chomsky asked if his opponent remained seated on his Firing Line show because he couldn’t think on his feet.  Mr. Buckley, in his slow and deliberate drawl, responded, “It is hard to stand up under the weight of all that I know.” 

When held against the famous debates between Mr. Buckley and men like Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, Saul Alinsky and the aforementioned Noam Chomsky, what stands as political discussion today does not even deserve the characterization of a “cheap imitation.”  Such labeling would suggest an attempt to maintain the standards of those previous shows, however seldom achieved.  The pundits found on CNN, MSNBC and FOX are deplorable and not worthy of comparison.  There are a handful of people who consistently elevate the discussion – men like George Will and Bill Kristol.  Yet, they too must submit themselves to the altar of television commercialism and superficiality.  The yelling and lack of proper discourse often forces one to wonder when or if the adults will ever rescue our “news” from the ditch in which it seems firmly entrenched.   

What would be the benefit of the return of such programming?  That answer could fill pages but in short, it would re-establish the importance of being informed, something to which the American electorate seems, at times, unwilling to submit themselves.  Mr. Buckley once said that, “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”  Like history, politics and the issues of today are best consumed in a medium that allows for the greatest exposition.  This, hopefully, can engender greater, more informative discussions rather than the tendency to speak in slogans.  Newspapers of today are responding to budget cuts by providing less, making their product irrelevant.  If they are to go the way of the dinosaur, best to go out with the highest demands and standards as possible.     

A second point suggests an appropriateness of serious discussions over serious issues where quick attempts to simplify and marginalize are the order of the day.  Last weekend, the Documentary Channel aired a show that featured a 1963 roundtable discussion between James Baldwin, Joseph Mankiewicz, Charlton Heston, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Sidney Poitier on the subject of civil rights.  All the men had recently attended Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march upon the capital.  In a solemn and disciplined tone befitting the seriousness of the subject, they discussed.  Our society has a tendency to be sarcastic and “funny” in order to be entertaining but the worth of discussion stems from the exercise itself.  Much like education where subjects should be considered interesting in and of themselves, the journalists and philosophers need the intellectual room to allow ideas to breathe.  

Lastly, such programming would bring us away from the edge of the chasm, the bottom of which is littered with more modern shows and reinforce the need of bigger ideas.  We are drowning in small and insignificant notions and we are the worse for it as a society.  Some would say that are world no longer allows for this and it goes against the prevailing winds of technology and society.  Yet, imagine what would be possible if our leaders, those who cover them and the public demanded more.