This morning I happened upon a remarkable exercise in hyperbole, an article in The New Republic that calls the current partial government shutdown "one of the worst crises in American history." Compared to the current reduction of the activities of the federal government to only 85% of normal (that's what the partial shutdown is doing), the writer of the New Republic piece thinks that 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg and the winter at Valley Forge were nothing much. And why is that? According to TNR, in the current battle, the Republicans are fighting government rather than a foreign enemy. Got that? If a group of Americans decide that the government is doing something wrong and they use the system to try to change the course being followed by the government, that is a terrible moment for America. I wonder how the writer feels about the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era when the government was prosecuting the war and Americans tried to work both within and outside the system to change that. I wonder how the writer feels about the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's when the governments of many states promoted segregation and individual Americans used the system to try to change that. I wonder whether TNR thinks that the folks who tried to end our involvement in Iraq just a few years ago when the government was moving ahead with that endeavor were a major crisis for America. The truth is that what is happening now in Washington is something that is very, very common in our history. Americans have always tried to change government policies and programs that they do not like. The fact that we can make those attempts is something that made America unique in the world for much of its existence. A lament from a leftist in The New Republic does not change the USA into the old Soviet Union where any opposition to the government was treated with an all expense paid "vacation" to the gulag in Siberia.
Most likely, the crazy talk in The New Republic was more part of the Democrats' offensive of nastiness and overblown rhetoric than an actual statement of the writer's views. Even at The New Republic, they do not usually employ people who are quite so devoid of historical accuracy. (Okay, maybe they do.) Yesterday, one Democrat in the House had a mission to scream that the GOP was on a jihad against the American people. More of them were out there screaming that Republicans were terrorists, extortionists, rapists and thugs. Even president Obama and his spokesmen got into the act.
Think back a few years to when representative Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona. Remember the uproar from the left over the map on Sarah Palin's website showing Democrat seats targeted for pickup in the next election? Palin's map showed Giffords' district with a little target on it. The Democrats said Palin was responsible for the shooting of Giffords and the called for civility to be used in public discourse. Just imagine what the same Democrats would have said if instead of some irrelevant mark on a map, Palin had called Giffords a thug, a criminal, a terrorist or an extortionist and then she had been shot. Palin, of course, did no such thing, but the Democrats right now are doing exactly that.
For American government to function, there needs to be a measure of civility that governs in Washington. Those in government have to treat their fellow senators, congressmen and executive branch employees as good people who are doing their best to accomplish what they think best for America. That does not mean that criticism should be off the table. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, lying is still lying, and wrongheaded policy should still be debated and avoided. What has to end, however, is the practice of making personal attacks on opponents. Sure, there will still be those in the media and among the public who will engage in those personal attacks. Indeed, that is their right. What has to stop, however, is such attacks being made by the people in government itself.
Most likely, the crazy talk in The New Republic was more part of the Democrats' offensive of nastiness and overblown rhetoric than an actual statement of the writer's views. Even at The New Republic, they do not usually employ people who are quite so devoid of historical accuracy. (Okay, maybe they do.) Yesterday, one Democrat in the House had a mission to scream that the GOP was on a jihad against the American people. More of them were out there screaming that Republicans were terrorists, extortionists, rapists and thugs. Even president Obama and his spokesmen got into the act.
Think back a few years to when representative Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona. Remember the uproar from the left over the map on Sarah Palin's website showing Democrat seats targeted for pickup in the next election? Palin's map showed Giffords' district with a little target on it. The Democrats said Palin was responsible for the shooting of Giffords and the called for civility to be used in public discourse. Just imagine what the same Democrats would have said if instead of some irrelevant mark on a map, Palin had called Giffords a thug, a criminal, a terrorist or an extortionist and then she had been shot. Palin, of course, did no such thing, but the Democrats right now are doing exactly that.
For American government to function, there needs to be a measure of civility that governs in Washington. Those in government have to treat their fellow senators, congressmen and executive branch employees as good people who are doing their best to accomplish what they think best for America. That does not mean that criticism should be off the table. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, lying is still lying, and wrongheaded policy should still be debated and avoided. What has to end, however, is the practice of making personal attacks on opponents. Sure, there will still be those in the media and among the public who will engage in those personal attacks. Indeed, that is their right. What has to stop, however, is such attacks being made by the people in government itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment