Re: Political discourse must return to civility
(editorial from the Journal Star, 8/4/17)
Politics have never been civil — wars have been fought over the inability to tolerate the other side; communism vs. democracy, slavery vs. freedom, whatever the issues are, it’s hard for people to be completely accepting of a value so extremely different than their own. When one’s values and beliefs are woven into the law they care about the outcome, a perfectly human reaction. Voicing these values in hopes of influencing the outcome is as well, perfectly human. The journal star’s assertion that political discourse has become uncivil is unfounded and biased, only citing protests against state republicans. I argue that the methods in which people are voicing their views, as cited by the journal star, are important devices protected by the constitution.
“Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s town halls in Lincoln were overshadowed by angry protests, interruptions shouted from the crowd, and at least one large-scale walkout.” This statement by the journal star is their supposed damning evidence that we are losing our Nebraska niceness — to me this reads to be a normal town hall where people are utilizing their constitutional right to protest to make a point. In this piece, the journal star doesn’t elaborate on what qualified the protests to be “angry” but from checking other news coverage of Fortenberry’s town halls it seemed that the protesters were standing in a group with signs, chanting before the event began. Given their pro-republican messaging throughout the rest of the piece (which I will elaborate on later in my argument), it appears that protests are only seen as volatile and inappropriate if against conventional conservative messaging. Protests have a long history in the United States (and the world) as being an effective way to get out a political message, especially to already elected officials who constituents feel are not adequately listening to or representing them. Unless a protest turns violent or leads to illegal activity, I have a tough time understanding why the journal star would call them uncivil.
The journal star’s messaging is condescending — their main point beyond how Nebraskans are supposedly acting non-civil (uncivil?) is that people need to participate “in a diplomatic manner.” While they recognize that “disagreeing with the stances, actions and votes of elected officials isn’t wrong” their piece suggests anything but; the journal star implores us all to remember “that all of us stand beneath the same flags first and foremost.” Their message is empty and vague rhetoric, not saying anything substantial for how we can supposedly be civil. The fact that they only touched upon “events” of protest against elected republican officials and only say vague statements yearning for peace and kindness imply that they just disagree with the views that were expressed and are offended because their feelings are hurt. There’s two, almost three, full paragraphs devoted to empty phrases saying that we all need to come together.
When the journal star finally offers advice on how we can regain the civility that we’ve lost, they say, “Call or email their [elected officials] offices. Testify before local and state governments. Write a letter to the editor. Organize or participate in a peaceful protest or rally. Campaign for a candidate. Run for office yourself. Above all, exercise your right to vote.” Beyond the awkward and not true assumption that someone engaging in their above listed non-civil activities aren’t also engaging politically in these ways, there are several issues. It’s hypocritical for them to say one should organize a “peaceful” protest but then condemn the same behavior earlier in their piece. Furthermore, it’s classist to just say “run for office” as if it’s something anyone can pick up and do — they should instead be applauding people for voicing their opinions in the ways accessible to them.
Calling, emailing, and testifying are all great ways to stay involved — but often times, these don’t project a large message. I’ve worked in several political offices, and most of the time candidates and parties and officials only record the messages that agreed with them so they could report how many people they had actively calling in on their side. Besides a one line response on “how sorry” they are about their disagreements and the wonders of democracy, people on an opposing side don’t get much of a reaction. And while I am a huge proponent of political engagement and the importance of voting, not voting can be a successful act of protest (when parties see the low-turnout they had with certain demographics they have to wonder “What went wrong? What should we change?”)
Of course, I’m not disagreeing with the journal star that all of these methods should be utilized — I am only saying that their dismissal of more vocal political tactics reek of bias, and that I am proud to live in a country where we can participate in a democracy through so many different means.
Originally written for a class; content has not been changed in interest of avoiding plagiarism matching