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 American Dilemma

In 1964, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Civil Rights Act.  In short, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, religion and gender.  It was the culmination of decades of work by civil rights activists and a step towards a promise fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Since the passage of the law, the country has tried to live up to the best intentions of the act.  Perhaps, the country’s measure of progress is highlighted by the actions of “civil rights’ leaders” on issues of little racial importance.   

In light of the Treyvon Martin case, the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the context in which both transpired, we have a classic example of what has happened to the civil rights’ movement.  More importantly, we have an idea of what has happened to its standard bearers.  To put succinctly, the civil rights’ activists have turned what is not racism into racism and have turned a blind eye to the true issues that face the black community.  To exemplify their lack of interests in solving real issues and in the midst of all of the protests, gesticulations and prognostications, there is a demand for a “conversation” on race.  Generally, when someone tells me there needs to be a conversation, it is never a true conversation they seek.  What they seek is a one-way channel of dogma to be digested and swallowed whole.  Anything short of that and the labels come out, be it racist or whatever.   

Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who built his career as a racial ambulance chaser, throwing out racist epithets toward Jews and other groups, has somehow, by the media and other interested parties, been re-cast as an arbiter of racial harmony, justice and equality.  None of his actions seem to support that image.  Mr. Sharpton’s power stems from the continuation of outrage and victimhood, following a two-step process.  First, he turns his rage upon things that has little to do with racial justice or equality, such as the Duke lacrosse team rape fiasco or George Zimmerman.  The real threat, in his mind, lies outside the community and not within.  Second, he continues the role of outraged speaker, stoking and maintaining support by not focusing on the community.  In short, his support is based on finding fault with others.  Fortunately, not all black leaders have been so detached.

Actor, comedian and activist Bill Cosby has drawn much criticism for his remarks about how the black community needs to get its own house in order.  He has gone after parents who are failing in their job in raising their children.  He has attacked the black community for accepting that which denigrates them such as certain entertainment and community standards (teen pregnancy, single-parent homes and some music).  He has further faulted its leaders for not calling enough attention to the problems tearing at the fabric of black society.  In recent weeks, there has been much attention drawn to the fact that since Trayvon Martin was killed, hundreds of black youths were killed in Chicago alone at the hands of other black youth.  However, Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about that.  There is no “day of outrage” or mass demonstrations throughout the country on this subject.  There are no speeches, no threats of boycotts on the city (as Mr. Sharpton has threatened on Florida) and no bombastic charges about the threat the city poses to the black community. 

Ultimately, tactics used by men like Mr. Sharpton are counter-productive – certainly for the black community.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that destructive means cannot create constructive ends.  However, the politics being played by the good reverend as hysteria over reason and thought have held the black community back, creating a perpetual victimhood mindset.  It has also created a national atomism that can be ultimately destructive for the country as a whole.  Let me be clear.  There are real examples of racism that need to be dealt with and done so in a way that fixes the problem and does not exacerbate already high emotions.  One who deals with racism must also keep the legacy of past leaders in mind.  They can do this by rationally addressing real concerns and not focusing on trivial (from a racial point of view) matters that only stoke fear and distrust.