Fight nice!
“You son of a %^&*#!” barked an elderly protester at a local political event. This is just one of several encounters I had with uncivil public discourse last week.
The angry senior citizen was part of a group of people organized by liberal Catholics United that gathered in Grove City, Pa., Monday to voice opposition to the Susan B. Anthony List’s “Votes Have Consequences Express” bus tour. He directed his venom at one of the SBA List’s pro-life employees, a large man, who responded firmly and nose-to-nose: “Don’t call my mother that! You don’t know who my mother is and neither do I. But I know she’s a wonderful person because she chose to give me up for adoption rather than abort me.”
While I spoke on behalf of the SBA List a few minutes earlier, the Catholics United crowd flashed “LIE” signs at me. The angry old man told me I should be ashamed of myself and another asked me rhetorically which side of the abortion conflict was the first to act violently. “The side that entered the mother’s womb and killed a baby,” I said calmly.
Two days later, a co-worker stopped me in a parking lot and told me that he’s frustrated with the vitriol in American politics. On Thursday, I participated in a discussion forum on Richard Mouw’s book “Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World” with 23 Grove City College faculty members representing several academic departments. Mouw’s work seems to be a thinly veiled critique of conservative Christians. That’s OK with me. Christians at all points on the theological spectrum—including this conservative Christian—need to work on civilizing our discourse and I appreciate Mouw’s Scriptural advice.
Consider another example I bumped into on Friday while on a business trip in Murfreesboro, Tenn.
The lead story of the Daily News Journal read “Comments ‘ridiculous’” and featured photos of the Christian Broadcasting Network’s Pat Robertson and the mayor of Rutherford County, Ernest Burgess. You’ll recall that the area is in turmoil over a proposed mosque that received questionable expedited approval from county government. Burgess was critical of Robertson’s 700 Club commentary suggesting that Muslims could have bribed the commissioners. “I don’t know whether anybody’s getting a payoff but it’s entirely possible,” Robertson said. “Can you imagine what $10,000 does to a small local politician in a little town? . . . Well, you can corrupt with two or three hundred [dollars] . . . in some areas but now we’re talking about thousands.” Did Dr. Robertson unfairly assail the integrity of Rutherford County commissioners on national television? Is this a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness?
Contemplating the week while flying home late Friday evening, I thought of my mother-in-law’s command to my wife and her sisters when they were children. Hearing a squabble, she’d holler, “Fight nice!” Note that the matriarch didn’t say, “Stop fighting!” There’s wisdom in her words because it’s impossible to avoid conflict and our challenge is to disagree agreeably. Mouw might add, “Civility is an elusive goal.” And, “We need to form good habits.” As sinners it’s important to understand that civility is not a natural resource. It’s something we need to create and develop daily for those inevitable times when we fight for what’s right in today’s increasingly polarized world.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top99 Comments to “Fight nice!”
I love irony.
Report comment to moderator
Pardon me Conan, but where do you see the irony?
Report comment to moderator
Oh gee, where to begin … the party that stirs up animus against Hispanics and Muslims, that tries to convince people the president secretly favors our enemies and may even be one of them … I’m not going to bother with the whole long list, but you see where I’m going .. the same people who do all that, whining that sometimes a Democrat isn’t nice to them?
Report comment to moderator
And that’s not even to mention the steady parade of invective about “leftys,” “Marxists,” “homosexualists,” etc on these very pages.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmmmm…
I wasn’t aware there was a “Christian” party in the US…
Report comment to moderator
RE #4:
Even more to the point!
I believe this is what Lee Wishing is addressing. Where’s the irony in addressing that? Is there latent irony in exhorting someone to do what they ought?
Report comment to moderator
Y’know … you’re right. I read the first part, about the mean liberal guy in the crowd, and kind of skimmed the rest. Reading more closely I see he also pointed out incivility on the right.
So in the spirit of civility, I apologize for misreading and retract my comments. Now I’ll be interested to see if others take the message to heart and, most importantly, if it extends beyond this one thread.
Report comment to moderator
“Oh gee, where to begin … the party that stirs up animus against Hispanics and Muslims, that tries to convince people the president secretly favors our enemies and may even be one of them”
Or the party that brands anyone who wants the immigration laws enforced as anti-Hispanic or anyone who doesn’t want the ground zero Mosques as anti-Muslim or anyone who disagrees with the President as anti-black. In other words anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and a racist and you don’t have to prove it.
Report comment to moderator
Fight nice.
Our pastor, who is an apologist for the faith and frequently engages people in those discussions, suggested the key always is to remain gracious (of course, but easier said than done) and dispassionate. That’s what is difficult, I think, because we all naturally feel very passionate about our views.
But it really does help to try to emotionally take a step back, listen first, take a breath and try to separate our responses from our passions (which frequently hit the boiling point very quickly). I have a hard time doing that which is probably why I generally stay clear of some of the more contentious topics! I know myself too well …
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Mr. Wishing, that’s as civil as I can get with a remark like that. The Democrats and their friends in the media were working to brand anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and racists even before Obama was elected. I can pull up headlines like “Lingering Racism may Hurt Obama” from before the election. Then when Obama won more Southern states than Gore or Kerry they had to go another way. It is the New McCarthyism. They figure people, especially the young, will be terrified of being associated with the images of the neo-Nazis and the KKK and fall in line.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, didn’t read 7 until I’d already posted 8 and 10. I still mean what I said, I just shouldn’t have said them now.
Report comment to moderator
I find the vitriol in American politics interesting and to a certain degree somewhat surprising. Now many here may disagree with me but the difference between a Clinton style democrat and Gingrich style Republican isn’t much and in some ways they could easily be two wings of the same party. Yet the level of animosity is higher than in some European countries between a solid leftist and a neo-fascist right. Even the Cdn political spectrum is wider and yet a social democrat and a conservative can politely argue and compromise. This vitriol is illustrative of something present in the American psyche/culture not present elsewhere.
There are some who would argue this originates from Aemrica’s Puritan past and its demand for certainty and a narrow path to the right solution. Other’s more inclined to an economic explanation may argue that this is a result of a neo-conservative economic systems that provides little certainty other than the whim of the market induce stress and volatility in society. Not surprisingly I favor the latter explanation. With little certainity and constant danger of economic failure, people are more likely to cling to their beliefs and have very little room to compromise.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS 8
Even tho you didn’t read 7 I still agree with what you said in 8, because even tho Conan apologized in 7, he constantly spews what you said in 8.
Report comment to moderator
So Conan doesn’t like it that a conservative is calling for civility. He finds it “ironic.”
I guess this is why, in their spirit of perfect consistency, liberals never call for civility, right?
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I’ve seen meetings of the House of Commons. If our congress acted like that the demanded apologies would take weeks.
Report comment to moderator
KBELS-15
I love it when we, mere mortal man, claim moral superiority, either personal, political, or group (left or right). And I do put myself in that “we”.
I must always remind myself of the scripture, “The heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it?”
HRW and others, I guess all of us, need to be careful in this, don’t we? There really is nothing that we accuse people of that we either havn’t done or are not capable of doing ourselves. Romans 2.
Report comment to moderator
Also HRW, we are an extremely diverse people with freedom of speech. That is a fairly rare combination.
Report comment to moderator
kbells, you are talking about “Question Period” which is mostly theatre and I grant you that the American system doesn’t have the equivalent yet the day to day work of gov’t and the greater political society seems a lot less vitriol despite greater political differences.
Report comment to moderator
17
Granted but you share that with Canada which shares the same amount of diversity but in two languages. Its part of being an immigrant society.
And I have trouble with claims of diversity in many rural areas both in Canada and the US. Diversity in some small towns in Ontario and Alberta means the difference between Dutch and Scotch/Irish.
The real diversity lies in the city and there’s always been tension between the newly arrived and the second or third generation immigrants. The current difficulty newly arrived Muslims are having in smaller cities reflects this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895_pf.html
Report comment to moderator
I have the Trudeau film made in Canada which has film from riots in Canada in it. So, I wouldn’t fall for HRW’s surprise at the vitriol. And if anyone took the time to read some American history, vitriol is nothing new. It was there in 1776.
Report comment to moderator
Ha! How about the tension between the Quebecois and the rest of you?
Report comment to moderator
19. I’ve seen the demographics of Canada. I have more diversity than that in my own family. Also it a new diversity. “In 1961, less than 2% of Canada’s population (about 300,000 people) could be classified as belonging to a visible minority group”
Report comment to moderator
NJL
I’m not sure what riots you are referring to especially with Trudeau — Are you referring to the FLQ crisis. That wasn’t a riot, but a specific incident involving a terrorist group.
The tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada has mellowed. Prior to the 1950s, there was no tension rather two nations-in-one which ignored each other. During the Quiet Revolution, tension increased and fueled the separation movement which tried both violence and electoral politics. The former failed and died. The latter continues but both the PQ and BQ no longer actively campaign for independence given the decentralized nature of Canada the independence they wanted — soveriegnty association — is pretty much the situation we have today.
Correct, the vitriol was there during the American revolution. 25 to 30% of Americans could be classified as Loyalists (or Tory) and many came to Canada as refugees. I never claimed the vitriol was new — however the question I raise is why is it there?
kbells
Correct. If you consider diversity to mean visible diversity only, then diversity in Canada is a recent development. But linguistically and religiously Canada is more diverse than America. And considering that the majority of visible minorities in the US prior to 1960 was either descendants of ex-slaves or Latinos from the annexed Mexican territories, I would think that diversity from voluntary immigration is a recent development in both countries. And as its a recent development, the present politics from the mud maybe a reaction to this development. OR it just may be part of a long tradition of yelling at the newest arrivals.
Report comment to moderator
I read a pertinant WSJ article today about Mr. Rasmussen of Rasmussen polling fame.
One of his comments indicates that the real divide in US politics is NOT between Republican and Democrat, but between the political/media elite, and the common people. He points out that the elite has totally misread the Tea Party movement. It explains why the public is so POed at the administration and the congress. They totally misread the public on the bailout and healthcare issues- which is why they are in such big trouble come November.
So I don’t know about vitriol, but there’s a groundswell of anger out there…
Report comment to moderator
“And considering that the majority of visible minorities in the US prior to 1960 was either descendants of ex-slaves or Latinos from the annexed Mexican territories,”
Really, what about the scores of Asians who poured in in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. As for linguistically and religiously, the same period brought in thousands of Catholics, Jews and Eastern and Southern Europeans who couldn’t speak English.
We don’t even consider two different kinds of European diversity anymore. You really need to study up on a the History of the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
People get angry, that’s why it’s there.
Report comment to moderator
It’s human nature.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Currently the amount of anger I see around me is because people are not being represented in the political process…
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Like some others, I too was confused by your posts at #1 and #4.
But your post at #7 was well-said.
I certainly accept your apology and the spirit in which it was offered; hopefully, others will too.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, MIM, and it is human nature to be angry about that.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I’d agree. The differences between the two political parties is rather slight. Maybe that’s why the rhetoric is often so heated. Without the heated rhetoric, people may actually realize that neither party offers much of a distinctive choice.
Sure, each party panders to different groups during the campaign process. But rarely does either party deliver on their promises to the more radical elements of the population.
Report comment to moderator
kbells
Really, what about the scores of Asians who poured in in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. As for linguistically and religiously, the same period brought in thousands of Catholics, Jews and Eastern and Southern Europeans who couldn’t speak English
that’s what I meant by visible vs non-visible diversity. The same immigrant wave occurred in both countries.
MIM
Currently the amount of anger I see around me is because people are not being represented in the political process…
The problem with first past the post is that its post a large minority can be non-represented. The last few elections in the US were all quite close leaving a large minority not satisfied with the results.
Report comment to moderator
MIM
A good article yet he only scratched the surface. He doesn’t explain why the majority are upset with the governing elites. Both the Democratic base and the Republican base are upset but for different reasons. Hence, there is still a division in America which is not between the political elites and the “people”.
When surveys question people in-depth about values, the real difference emerges between rural and urban. In terms of health care, bailouts, etc rural and urban America don’t like the compromise the political elites devised but for different reasons.
Report comment to moderator
And he could just mean by “not being represented” that the Congress simply does not listen to The People at all regardless of party. This isn’t really about Dem or Repub at all. This is about listening. Neither party listens.
Report comment to moderator
which is exactly what I said.
Report comment to moderator
#12 HRW
“I find the vitriol in American politics…”
How about this Canadian “joke” from a few years back?
“Why does Joe Clark carry a turkey under his arm?
“Spare parts.”
Report comment to moderator
Few public figures of history were taken to be more “uncivil” than Jesus. He castigated the hypocrites and frauds in civic society so vociferously that they they frequently conspired to kill him and had the political power to get it done–and did!
Jesus stood for truth and hit hard, making many enemies with the powerful. He was never intimidated by cheap calls for civility from the hypocrites and frauds themselves who pretended to claim the higher ground.
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase Edmond Burke:
Evil and injustice prosper when good people are silenced or weakened by disingenuous pre-emptive accusations that they are “uncivil.”
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing uncivil about accurately calling a homosexualist a homosexualist (when the term is rightly understood) or a Marxist a Marxist (rightly understood). What matters is not how the accusation makes them or anyone feel, but whether or not it is true, fair, accurate and rightly understood.
It is not uncivil to remind us NOT to trust self-attributed labels and opportunistic rhetoric.
The fact is that many in politics try to wear different “labels” from what they really are based on how they actually vote and act. They hijack language and labels for political chicanery. Then, when a fair and correct label is placed on them against their will, they call it “uncivil.” What is truly uncivil is being dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
Honest questions:
Why are so many Christians much easier to intimidate (than are secularists, humanists, feminists and homosexualists) with pre-emptive accusations that we are acting “unChristian” or “uncivil”? (’unChristian’, that is, defined by non-Christians who don’t want Christians to speak out, and ‘uncivil’ defined by some of the most uncivil among us)?
Why do so many Christians think that the only option we have in politics is to delegate all political action to God (without any participation from us)? Is it because we feel smugly superior in faith or spirituality by simply claiming that God will take care of it all?
Report comment to moderator
Because as you pointed out in #37, Jesus stood for truth. He could hit hard because he had truth on his side.
He was not making up falsehoods (e.g., “death panels,”); he was not using an extreme label on everything he disliked (e.g., calling every Obama policy “Marxist” when in reality Obama would have to go quite a long way further to actually BE Marxist); he was not conflating distantly related things for the purpose of exciting xenophobia (e.g., viewing all Muslims with disdain because of the violence of one sect, or smiling on laws that require American citizens to produce their papers on demand to prove they are here legally); he was not lashing out at his critics with exaggerated accusations of imaginary ulterior motives (e.g., saying that those of us who believe that gay marriage should be legal secretly want to destroy the family.) … I have heard all of those on this blog and in the wider debates.
Comparing the xenophobic, conspiracy-theorizing, willfully dishonest, overheated unhinged elements of the right to Jesus is pretty ridiculous and borderline blasphemous, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark said: What is truly uncivil is being dishonest.
If you really believed that, you would take the beam out of your own eye.
Report comment to moderator
“Comparing the xenophobic, conspiracy-theorizing, willfully dishonest, overheated unhinged elements of the right to Jesus is pretty ridiculous and borderline blasphemous, in my opinion.”
Hey, you know what? I admit to being just as angry and judgemental as the next guy, but have you listened to yourself lately? That’s sure a mouthful of hateful adjectives you’ve spewed there…. Perhaps you should take this exhortation to be civil to heart.
Report comment to moderator
HRW writes:
“The problem with first past the post is that its post a large minority can be non-represented.”
I’m sorry. I’ve read this several times and I can’t make heads or tails of it. Can you re-write that in plain English please?
I suppose what you’re saying is that the Tea Party is a “large minority”. I’d say Mr. Rasumussen disagrees with you…. I believe you’d be best served by reading the link I provided way back in #24. It sounds as if Mr. Rasmussen has the Tea Party pretty well pegged – as a large majority. And it’s because he’s asking the right questions.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #43: Yeah, but if you notice, I confined to a particular set of elements within the conservative movement — not conservatives in general — and I defined those elements by specific demonstrable behaviors.
I didn’t just say that all conservatives meet that description. If someone is conservative and doesn’t do things like I described, then that person’s not among the “xenophobic, conspiracy-theorizing, willfully dishonest, overheated unhinged elements of the right.”
Really, your rebuttal is just an admonishment that I should be nice, and not a refutation of anything I actually said.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the first past the post electoral system is that a large minority could be non-represented.”
does that help?
I read the link — as I state Rasmussen’s polling is surface deep.
Read the links I provided on whirled views for the financial origins of the Tea Party.
Report comment to moderator
I have long admired the Catholic church’s steadfast defense of the unborn. They defend human life– the unborn innocent and the born incarcerated for murder (and awaiting execution).
Catholics United is a blatant Soros front group.
It is liberal astroturf posing as grass roots.
Here’s a hint: if a group carries printed signs versus home-made ones, the group is 100% astroturf.
Looks like Soros took a clue from the Dallas investors who ran the ads for “Republicans for Clean Air”
Report comment to moderator
“Civility is an elusive goal.” It is also a powerful weapon in any debate. Speaking wisdom with civility is the higher ground.
The most frustrating thing about the political discourse in America is that we almost never discuss the real issues.
Obama ridicules his opponents in nearly every speech about their failed this and their failed that. He isn’t owning the real issue. It is merely name calling. His solutions are mostly payoffs to cronies and shifting wealth to the politically connected. Wouldn’t it be more civil of Obama to declare himself the president of all Americans and stop ridiculing half the electorate?
Regarding the NY Mosque, no one is asking Muslims to take ownership of the issue that they have problems in their ranks. Instead, the Imam calls America an accessory to the attacks and says bin Laden was made in the USA.
Wouldn’t it be more civil of the Imam to apologize for those in his religion who behave like Muhammad? Instead, his wife is all over the networks calling Americans Islamophobes and antisemites. That really doesn’t help to advance the debate.
Unfortunately there is no powerful public figure who will step in and be a voice of reason. There is no voice of reason in the media, except perhaps at WMB!
Report comment to moderator
“Fight nice”? That reminds me of all sorts of other odd sayings; like: “It’s better to be nice than right”…as though you can’t be both right (ie, correct) and nice at the same time. But it (fighting I mean) is obviously a difficult dance; where it is all too easy to step on the toes of a person who is dancing to a very different song than the one you may be only tapping your foot to…speaking of which is the song that talks about love being “worth fighting for”; now there is a paradox of sorts.
Report comment to moderator
The word “fighting” makes someone feel courageous. “Fight for what’s right!” However, while your “cause” may be “right”, yelling obscenities at the opposition diminishes not only you, but your argument.
Report comment to moderator
I was amazed to hear Barbara Boxer use the word “abortion” claiming her opponent in the Senate election would make abortion illegal. ProAborts never use the A word!
The thing that makes abortion discussion so hard is you have such difficultly finding anything both sides can agree on. A few proA folks will say (as Clintons do/did) they want there to be far fewer abortions ["safe, legal and rare"] The fun thing would be to have them explain why something legal should be rarely done!
Report comment to moderator
“The problem with the first past the post electoral system is that a large minority could be non-represented.”
does that help?
Um… No? Can you rephrase? Or put commas or quotes or something that delineate which part goes with what?
Sorry… I’m just not getting it.
“I read the link — as I state Rasmussen’s polling is surface deep.”
Ok, so why do you think it’s just surface deep? I was thinking about the whole state of affairs this morning, and what struck me was that Rasmussen is right about the huge divide between the political/media elites and common people. When was the last time that Congress passed a law that applied equally to the Hoi Polloi and them? Health Insurance? Pay raises? Taxes? The list is a long one…
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: The fun thing would be to have them explain why something legal should be rarely done!
All kinds of things are legal and yet not desirable. The legal mechanism exists because they’re sometimes necessary, but should usually be avoided.
Off the top of my head, I can think of: repossession or foreclosure; removal of children from an abusive home; someone having to make difficult decisions on behalf of a terminally ill spouse; terminating an employee who is earnest and trying hard but just not able to do the job.
I could add many more if I took time to think about it. These are things that are legal, usually safe, but we all hope they can be rare (even though they aren’t always.)
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Catholics United is a blatant Soros front group.
Do you have actual evidence of a connection, or are you just invoking his name because conservatives hate and fear him?
Report comment to moderator
HRW: I’m not getting it either. What does “first past the post election” mean?
I think your point is that close elections leave large numbers of people unsatisfied, which may be the only important part, but that phrase is pretty baffling.
Report comment to moderator
#41 – What was false about “death panels”, Conan? As I understood it, when that phrase was used, “end-of-life counseling” was indeed in the bill. Then the bill got altered. Good for Sarah Palin for speaking out and making a difference for the better. She influenced the debate and the process for the good. It’s not a falsehood if Democrats change the bill, then claim in hindsight it wasn’t there.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was a whole lot tougher in his attacks and accusations then conservatives today. Jesus knew that real people were harmed by hypocrisy and fraud. Unlike Jesus, today’s conservatives are too often weak and easily intimidated.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, have you read what Jesus said about Sodom and Gomrrah? Go read it (about four references in the gospels can be found) and see how clearly Jesus believed they were worthy of harsh judgment for their sin and unrepentance for those sins.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, requiring American citizens to produce their papers on demand is nothing new. The same requirement ought to apply for all, citizens and non-citizens alike. And requiring papers to affirm your legal status is simple justice and equality under the law.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark: Yeah, except that what Sarah Palin said and you all still believe was a blatant lie.
What “death panels” implies, and what many opponents described it as, was that there would be some group of people, probably in the government, who would consider cases of treatment for the elderly and decide who should get treatment and who should be left to die.
Is that what you believe?
What was really in the bill was a provision that IF someone on Medicare wanted to confer with his or her physician about options for end-of-life care — which is a prudent step for aging patients — Medicare will pay for one such consultation every five years.
Ironically, the REPUBLICAN Medicare reform act of a few years prior included a very similar measure. The only difference is that under the Republican law, the patient had to have actually received a terminal diagnosis, whereas the legislation last year allowed it on a more long-range fore-planning basis.
From that provision, dear Sarah and other spun up this fantasy of faceless bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies, and people like you believed it, and a good deal of the opposition to the legislation was rotted in such blatant lies.
So that’s what was false.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, my typing is bad. “rooted,” not “rotted,” and “others,” not “other,” in the above.
Report comment to moderator
It is deceitfully uncivil for Conanthelibrarian (at #42) to aver that I have a beam of dishonesty in my eye without him even attempting to give the slightests evidence or reason to back up his uncivil and salacious personal accusation.
________________
#42 is truly uncivil.
I try to offer my views clearly and up front and I can hit hard when necessary. That’s no accident. Even some conservatives on this blog don’t like that. But my posts are not personal attacks (though I will respond to personal attacks on me). I stick to ideas and issues. I try to appeal to thinkers rather than feelers. That’s no accident either.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you are simply incorrect in your salacious accusation against Sarah Palin. Her term (”death panels”) is a fair descriptive term for parts of the bill at that time that she wanted to challenge. “End of life counseling” amounts to the same thing as “death panels” in the real world.
* Why do leftists get to use their own phrases and terms for “abortion” (like “choice”) and you don’t call that a blatant lie, Conan?
* Why does Howard Dean get to say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats don’t want children to go to bed hungry, and Conan does not call him a blatant liar?
* Why do Democrats get to say (during the health care debate) that Republicans want people to die faster, and Conan does not call them blatant liars? Consider the false implications of such hateful rhetoric from the Democrats and compare that to the well-reasoned warnings that Palin presented.
Partisanship blinds you, Conan. Sarah Palin made the bill a better bill (although it was and still is a horrible bill overall) by speaking out about the end-of-life-counseling provisions. That’s politics at its best.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry
I thought it was a common term in all English speaking countries. The second paragraph in this link explains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system
Report comment to moderator
#37-40 JoelMark,
Very good comments.
Language is important, and whoever can re-define the context and words from moment to moment, has a better shot at framing the issue to their own advantage or the advantage of their group. That’s one reason traditional meanings and origins are important.
As odd as it seems, when it comes to political discourse, Glenn Beck has probably done more to stress the importance of traditional origins than just about any of our current political, religious, or educational leaders. Everything else in our world changes at such a rapid pace, that without this basic education of context, it seems almost impossible for the population to discern why the meanings should not change with the issues, or that they are being changed.
As for the topic of this thread, most charges of hate, incivility, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc, are just expressions of disagreement made in such a way as to try to intimidate the other party into giving up their argument; and are therefore, the essence of incivility. And while these things do exist [except homophobia and islamophobia, which are nothing more than politically charged pejoratives], the accusations are far more frequent than the occurrence of the offense.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I actually don’t like the idea of citizens having to produce “papers” on demand. Reason: it isn’t legally required (nor can I see how it can be legally required) that I keep papers on me at all times, and I don’t. In fact, some women’s pants and skirts/dresses are made without pockets, so I can’t carry “papers” with me unless I carry a purse. That was sometimes a nuisance in Chicago where for safety reasons I didn’t carry a purse. (Every woman I knew in Chicago had had a purse stolen or an attempted purse snatching.) A roommate of mine used to go jogging without carrying so much as a housekey.
If I don’t drive a car or fly, currently I’m not required even to have a driver’s license or state-issued ID, as far as I know, and certainly I’m not required to have it on me if I’m not driving. (If I’m just a passenger or I’m walking and not driving, I often leave my wallet at home.) One danger of requiring citizens (or non-citizen residents, for that matter) to carry birth certificates or passports at all time is that one is making them extremely vulnerable to theft, and certainly likely to lose them as well. That in itself may not be enough reason not to require it, but it is an issue. I can see people being robbed at gunpoint, perhaps murdered, for their papers.
Report comment to moderator
52
Ok, so why do you think it’s just surface deep? I
Rasmussan through his polling perceives a difference between the governing elites and the people. However, he doesn’t poll or survey to find why the people are upset with the elite — he just assumes they have common cause. They don’t — the people are still split in terms of how they view issues.
The interesting thing about Tea Party support is that its not drawn entirely from all the people. Since the people are still split even when upset with the elites the tea party draws only from the portion who have a common cause — basically the Republican base. The governing elite do recognize this and have funded the tea party because they are useful — both Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and the Koch brother’s Americans for Prosperity provided the start up funds.
The tea party has then become a home for people angry about the last election and feeling underrepresented (again the democratic process in Anglo-Saxon countries is essentially winner take all). Those whose votes were on the winning side did not make common cause with the tea party even when they felt that their vote was taken for granted by the winning side. They can’t make common cause because they view the issues entirely different. So despite Rasmussen’s findings the people are not on one side and the elites on the other side.
Report comment to moderator
Are you serious???
You seriously think allowing Medicare payments for patients to consult with physicians about options for end-of-life care so they can plan for the day when they need to make decisions is fairly described as “death panels?”
And you seriously think it’s ok when Republicans allow it and a grievous atrocity when Democrats allow it?
I give up. I have no way to break through that kind of lunacy.
Report comment to moderator
I was one who pooh-poohed the notion of ‘death panels’ as silly hyperbole. But maybe not.
Obama’s pick to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Dr. Donald Berwick, is a strange choice for someone who doesn’t believe healthcare should be rationed. He is ”is an outspoken admirer of the British National Health Service and its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE).” in a 2008 speech he said ““I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it,”
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Do you think private insurers don’t make treatment decisions on a cost-benefit basis?
A comment in an interview, whatever the Cato Institute may think it means, doesn’t change the fact that there was nothing resembling “death panels” in the legislation. I remain flabbergasted that Joel Mark thinks people wisely thinking ahead and wanting to know before it becomes an urgent decision what their options will be is in any way bad, let alone something that can fairly be described as a “death panel.”
I guess the act of making a will is essentially suicide? The logic is about the same.
Report comment to moderator
“repossession or foreclosure”
What? A mortgage is a contract! Plain and simple. Nobody can repossess or foreclose if they pay cash for the property in the first place. Don’t put your house up for collateral if you can’t pay.
This is the worst example I have ever read from Conan. Really bad.
Report comment to moderator
#69
This is what happens when you apply corporate thinking to health care.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, please try to keep up. I was giving examples of things that are legal but should be rare, a situation Sawgunner wasn’t able to grasp.
Foreclosure is something that’s legal, but shouldn’t we all hope it happens rarely?
I don’t even understand what your objection is.
Report comment to moderator
HRW at #64: Thanks, that clears it up. I have never heard the term, though it makes perfect sense once explained.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Conan, requiring American citizens to produce their papers on demand is nothing new. The same requirement ought to apply for all, citizens and non-citizens alike. And requiring papers to affirm your legal status is simple justice and equality under the law.
No it isn’t. do you live in some alternate-universe version of America? Citizens aren’t required to walk around with their birth certificates or naturalization papers on them at all times, which are the only documents that really confirm citizenship. (A drivers’ license can confirm identity and residency, but not citizenship.)
Think about images of uniformed officials approaching civilians and demanding “papers, please!” Then think about, historically, which governments have implemented such policies, and decide whether anyone should want America to emulate such governments.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I just want to say that though I’m usually coming from the opposite side of an argument than you, I’ve been reading a lot of posts from you the last few days where you have the best (or one of the best) “arguments” on the thread. Post 75 is good.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. No wonder I didn’t get the terminology. “First past the post” would be… the first horse past the post… or the winner. If you’d put that phrase in the least bit of context, I’d a got it. I’d never have figured it out otherwise…
So if we read that sentence using newly gained knowledge….
We could say it like this:
The problem with the “first [horse] past the post” electoral system is that a large minority could be non-represented.
Or you could use “winner” instead of “first past the post”…
So, pardon my ignorance, but what is the alternative? Despotism? Monarchy?
Report comment to moderator
Several US states have run-off elections if a majority of 50 plus one is not achieved. Preference voting is used in Australia where one can rank your preferences so that if 50 plus one is not achieved, the lower ranked candidates votes are recounted as to the voter’s second preference. Or you could use proportional representation, where seats are assigned on the basis of percentage votes and not districts won, one party will rarely if ever gain an absolute majority and coalitions need to be formed. This insures that larger groups of people have an influence. New Zealand has a mixed system where there are still electoral districts but also at-large seats which are assigned so that the composition of parliament reflects the percentage of votes per party.
There are problems with proportional representation- in Israel for example religious parties have a disproportionate influence but in general proportional representation gives more people a voice and ensures that one party won’t push the entire agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I was thinking of a drivers license at #59, but I was not taking the time to specify details. As I stated, “The same requirement ought to apply for all, citizens and non-citizens alike.” That was my point.
I was responding to Conan the Librarian’s post at #41 which contained several false premises. In claiming that Jesus “was not conflating distantly related things for the purpose of exciting xenophobia”, Conan was implying that this IS what his straw construction of conservatives do.
Cheryl, Conan claimed that his straw presumption about his opponents included them “viewing all Muslims with disdain because of the violence of one sect, or smiling on laws that require American citizens to produce their papers on demand to prove they are here legally.”
I don’t think that all conservatives or all Christians view all Muslims with disdain at all and I think that conservatives and Christians tend to simply want our laws respected. That’s the context for my response.
I think your response to me (in which I agree with what you said) seemed to go rather far in presuming what I believe about immigration laws or identification procedures, so I thought I would just clarify.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, to whom are you communicating at #68?
Who stated that it’s ok when Republicans allow [end-of-life counseling or whatever you were presuming Republicans allegedly allow] and a grievous atrocity when Democrats allow it?
All that remains is that Sarah Palin earned our gratitude by speaking out on “death panels” in a way that made Democrats rush back to the drawing board and make changes.
Report comment to moderator
I repeat that it was deceitfully uncivil for Conanthelibrarian (at #42) to aver that I have a beam of dishonesty in my eye without him even attempting to give the slightests evidence or reason to back up his uncivil and salacious personal accusation.
Report comment to moderator
Again (as asked at #40), why are so many Christians easy to intimidate with pre-emptive accusations that we are acting “unChristian” or “uncivil”?
Do you agree that this is even the case?
I would be most interested in and respectful toward Cheryl’s response to this honest question.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, didn’t mean to “presume” what you were saying, just pointing out that even if you meant only driver’s license, that’s still more than is required of citizens today, and probably more than should be required of citizens today. For example, I didn’t drive till I was 20–should I have been required to obtain (and carry) state ID on my 18th birthday? If so, what happens if at 15 I looked 25? (When my sister was 14 and I was 15, three times in one summer older women asked if I was her mother. So it’s safe to say I looked like an adult.) Can a teenager riding a bicycle to school be jailed for failure to show ID, even if she wasn’t breaking the law?
You’re a man, and probably used to carrying your wallet everywhere, even a walk around your neighborhood, and the idea of having to show ID randomly may not sound like that big a deal. I personally can see being asked to show ID if one is suspected of a crime, but not being required to have it present. (In other words, if I’m walking around the neighborhood and police get suspicious of me, they can ask me to prove my identity, but they should not be able to “take me in” for failure to have ID on me. They could require me to go home and get it, I suppose, but I personally don’t want to see a law that every adult citizen must be prepared to show ID at all times, even if walking around the neighborhood, washing the car in one’s own front yard, or inside one’s own house.)
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I got the “first past the post” terminology once it was rephrased. Maybe I’ve read too many books about horse racing, or maybe the term is used in the U.S. occasionally.
Report comment to moderator
Also it has never been required in the US for citizens to have a national ID on them. In Europe many nations require them, on all parts of the political spectrum. I prefer the US system, in which according to federal law citizens do not need papers, while non-citizens do. Even then US residents, immigrants, and tourists are only requested to show their ID if they are suspected of a crime. Citizens also only need to provide ID if they are arrested for obvious reasons.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: It is a lie to use the term “death panels” in relation to the health care bill.
You know perfectly well that the phrase means just what it sounds like, a panel of people choosing who gets treatment and who gets left to die.
The legislation contained nothing resembling that. The end of life counseling is simply sitting down with a doctor to talk about what the choices will be IF the patient gets to the point of needing them. Such as, does my area have a good hospice? Can I get in-home nursing care? Etc. If you’re 80 years old and in failing health, finding out about those things before it becomes a crisis demanding a quick decision is wise. Many people choose to do it. All the legislation would have done would have been to provide Medicare coverage for the consultation, no more than once every five years, and only for patients who want it.
Sarah Palin raised a stink about with a complete and utterly dishonest characterization of it, and scared a lot of people, so much so that Democrats caved and took it out even though it was never anything like she claimed.
For someone such as yourself who claims to care about truth, this should be shameful. Instead you get petulant and defensive when the dishonesty is pointed out.
As for #81, stop whining. I’ve pointed out clear dishonesty several times now.
Report comment to moderator
MIM, the alternatives are Preferential voting, Proportional representation, or single transferable vote.
Report comment to moderator
Conan claimed; “It is a lie to use the term ‘death panels’ in relation to the health care bill.”
Incorrect, not when Palin used that term. It was a fair and understandible objection to what was proposed in the bill at that time. And it remains that Palin earned our gratitude by speaking out on “death panels” in a way that made Democrats rush back to the drawing board and make changes. The Democrats understood what she wrote well enough to know what needed to be changed.
It would be honest if Conan would admit that Palin was also talking about what she thought the bill (as written at that time) would likely lead to. Her comments were fair political discourse and they made a difference for the good.
The concern was that the bill would give gov’t too much control and influence over end-of-life decisions. That is not a healthy track to get on. Conan is white-washing what the bill said and in denial that Palin’s objections were so substantive and accurate that she influenced the changes made to the bill.
We need more people like Sarah Palin who speak their mind on politics so honestly and to the point and who cannot easily be intimidated by salatious and unfair accusations about lying.
Report comment to moderator
I repeat again that it was uncivil for Conanthelibrarian (at #42) to aver that I have a beam of dishonesty in my eye. He did not attempt in that post to give the slightest evidence or reason to back up his uncivil and salacious personal accusation of dishonesty.
Respectful disagreement should be possible on this blog without rash unfounded personal accusations of dishonesty. But there are times for that accusation to be responsibly made and when it is, solid evidence should go with it. It should also not be a personal accusation or implication that a fellow blogger or commenter is dishonest but rather a claim targeted at the particular statement that is clearly dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever met a group of people who are so willing to hand over their freedoms?
Report comment to moderator
It would be honest if Conan would admit that Palin was also talking about what she thought the bill (as written at that time) would likely lead to.
No, it would be fantasy. What she was talking about was never in any version of the bill. Not an early one, not a late one. It never existed.
You can prove me wrong quite easily. Go find a passage in any version of the bill that establishes a panel of bureaucrats to decide who lives and who dies. If it was ever in there, it’ll be easy. Just quote the language and provide the bill number.
Respectful disagreement should be possible on this blog without rash unfounded personal accusations of dishonesty.
When I have demonstrated what you’re being dishonest about, and your reaction is to just redouble your insistence and refuse to admit that you’re in error, then it’s no longer possible to charitably assume it’s an honest error. At that point, the accusation is not rash and is founded in your own actions.
Report comment to moderator
If your argument is that she didn’t say death panels were in the bill, but that the bill could lead to them, there is some truth to that … but she didn’t present them as a possible result (and if it were really possible, easily dealt with with an tweak to the bill language), but as a near certainty.
What she originally wrote on Facebook was:
That’s a very scary image, not presented by her as a possibility but as a certainty.
It is telling that she eventually tried to claim she didn’t really mean it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/22/palins-death-panels-charge-named-lie-of-the-year/
Do you also defend as “true” Betsy McCaughey’s statement that the health care reform bill “would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/
Because that’s what the “death panels” talk started, and that was undoubtedly Palin’s intention. She couched it just carefully enough that a lot of other people spread the falsehood, while she had cover to bat her eyelashes and say ‘well I never said that, I don’t know wherever they got THAT idea… ‘
Report comment to moderator
Palin’s quote above from FB, sounds like her opinion. And if we keep going in the direction we’re going with healthcare, it sounds like a plausible opinion. When rationing comes it has to be based on some criteria. Healthcare reform ensures that those decisions will not be based on the free market. And if it’s not going to be based on the free market, there will be governmental agencies or quasi-governmental agencies responsible for those decisions. It’s speculation, but not unreasonable speculation.
As it is, healthcare reform is costing us dearly. And small businesses are in confusion about what is going to be requred of them, and whether or not they can survive it. Insurance companies are already raising their rates in anticipation of new governmental constraints that will kick in soon. And some policies are not available any more for that same reason.
It was stupid of the Dems to focus on healthcare instead of jobs, but the far left would have its pound of flesh. Now we all get to pay for it. I hope the Dems pay for it dearly in Nov and 2012, and 2016, and ….
Report comment to moderator
(I’m joining the conversation late and am just commenting on Wishing’s article, not the 93 comments that have followed
I’ve noticed that our society in general doesn’t seem to know how to fight nice; we don’t know how to argue the pros and cons of an idea or search for logical fallacies in a opposing point of view. When we encounter an idea we oppose, we tend to jump to the only disagreement styles we know–attacking the person rather than the idea, lumping people together with a stereotyped group, etc. It’s an emotional and personal attack rather than an honest evaluation at the matter at hand. Maybe Americans just need training in formal debate … at any rate, I think this tendency to jump to emotional rather than logical attacks is why we so often have more heat than light.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you have been uncivil in your baseless smears of both Sarah Pail and myself as liars and dishonest people. Both your claims, spins, denials and twists of context and timing are not credible. Your comments are simply without honor or integrity, Conan. You cannot abide disagreement respectfully. Shame on you, Conan.
__________
Regarding health care, the Obama administration knowingly doctored numbers and drenched them in perfume and denial. And then once the bill came out, they admitted that their numbers were disasterously wrong. Conservatives knew it already. On this matter, the ONLY honest people were conservatives like Sarah Palin and others who spoke out correctly in the wake of this extrotionist gov’t revenue generating bill. Health coverage costs a lot more now than the Democrats predicted. This will continue. Every responsible person I know has been personally hurt, financially (without a shred of improved care), already by Obama coverage–and the alleged benefits don’t begin for 4 years. It does nothing but extort more revenue without improving care. And putting the government in charge of end-of-life-counseling was a disasterous idea and I am grateful that Governor Palin effectively put a stop to the worst aspects of that slippery slope. She pulls no punches and people like Conan cannot make her pull them with baseless attacks on her character.
Report comment to moderator
I have read all the posts above, and it makes me chuckle at how many rude and uncivil comments are posted underneath this particular article. (Conan and others especially)
All I can say is: Please show respect for the other person you are debating with by NOT labeling or spewing insulting adjectives. It makes tempers flare up and it makes it more difficult to understand one another.
I agree with Mr. Wishing to a certain point. We do need to be civil (meaning keeping one’s impolite words to oneself) but not to the point of being complacent if we want our opinion to be heard and considered.
I have heard so many insults directed at Sarah Palin based on her character, which the offenders apparently know nothing about. Obviously, these comments are to stir up trouble and to give them someone to blame.
Conan, I believe you should just bow out of this one gracefully now….
Report comment to moderator
Debra: It’s speculation, but not unreasonable speculation.
But it wasn’t presented as speculation. It was presented as an inevitability.
If she had framed it as, ‘hey, this could lead to rationing, let’s talk about that,’ I doubt it would have ever been controversial. A productive dialogue could have ensued that would have dealt with just how likely that was, and if the language could be changed to prevent it.
But she didn’t. She framed it as “if this bill passes, there will be death panels,” and succeeded in terrifying a bunch of people who actually would have benefited by having a medical consultation covered by Medicare that currently is not.
And her lack of remorse over doing that tells me it was what she intended all along.
Report comment to moderator
Charlatans in Washington who are too negligent to even read the 2000 pages of unintelligible legislation that were deemed passed in their name, have degraded the institution of congress almost beyond recognition.
All the finger-pointing and blame-shifting are just minor distractions seeking to disguise the magnitude of what has been lost in the process.
It’s not working.
Report comment to moderator
Libertybug said: “I have read all the posts above, and it makes me chuckle at how many rude and uncivil comments are posted underneath this particular article. (Conan and others especially) All I can say is: Please show respect for the other person you are debating with by NOT labeling or spewing insulting adjectives. It makes tempers flare up and it makes it more difficult to understand one another.”
I agree with you and noticed the same irony.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!