Rick Esenberg, head of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, offers personal thoughts on not demonizing one’s opponents. For instance:
If you think that your political opponent is evil, you are probably wrong. Most liberals are not fanatical communists or amoral libertines. Most conservatives are not heartless and greedy or censorious prudes. People differ in the priority that they place on often competing, but commonly shared, values—say liberty v. equality—and in their judgments on the way that the world works and what must be done to serve those values. Beware of responding to a cartoon that you have created, as opposed to real people and the arguments that they make.
Are they listening at MSNBC and Fox, Media Matters and the Family Research Council? Not on your life. To be fair, it’s hard when you strongly disagree with the other side’s views to keep the focus on policy arguments rather than disparaging the person, but it’s good to remember we ought to try.
Similarly, David Lampo on “the seemingly innate tendency for some people to react in completely opposite ways based on the party affiliation of the person involved.”
Also, I didn’t want to do another whole post on it, but let’s take note of Liz Cheney’s withdrawal from the Wyoming senate race. The quarrel with her lesbian sister Mary and Mary’ wife, Heather Poe, over Liz’s opposition to same-sex marriage is a harbinger of what more GOP candidates are going to be running into. Alas, the comments posted on the Washington Post article linked to above, and at other media sites reporting this story, are mostly far from civil.
45 Comments for “A Call for Political Civility”
posted by Houndentenor on
There was nothing civil about Liz Cheney’s campaign. She tried to demonize Mike Enzi and pandered to the anti-gay crowd by throwing her sister under the bus. She deserves whatever snarky comments she gets. As for internet comment sections, that’s hardly the barometer for what would pass as civil. That’s always been like that since the beginnings of online chatter. I don’t think that level is the problem. The problem is the people in public who practice scorched earth campaigns. It’s no accident that half of my relatives think Obama is a “secret muslim” and a communist in spite of the complete lack of evidence for either. Yes, there are fringe groups all around and there always have been, but rarely have political leaders been so eager to pander to the extremists, at least not in my lifetime.
I agree that we could use more civility. But in saying that I’m reminded of the horrible things that folks like Jefferson and Adams said about each other in public: statements far worse than anything I hear today. And finally the way to make the change is to behave more civilly. I think people who behave properly have a right to expect to be treated with the same courtesy. The problem today is that people act horribly and then expect to be treated politely in return. The joke of people who constantly call for boycotts against companies with liberal (especially pro-gay) policies acting victimized when a liberal groups reacts with the same tactics is hilarious. Some people don’t deserve the crap thrown at them. Plenty of others do. No one has any right to expect to be treated better than they treat others.
posted by Tom Scharbach+ on
The key to civil argument is to keep the focus on ideas, analysis, facts, to support opinions with reasoning, and to refrain from personalizing differences.
I try to do that (not always successfully) because I spent my career in law (an environment in which hard but dispassionate argument without personal rancor is the norm), because I live in the rural Midwest where civility is accorded high cultural value, and because I am in surrounded by (and in frequent contact and discussion with) people whose ideas I strongly disagree with and oppose.
A few observations:
(1) It is hard to demonize someone you know as otherwise decent. Our success in moving the country toward “equal means equal” has been largely fueled by this simple principle. I suspect that our current political climate is fueled by the fact that we have become separated into opposing camps that don’t talk to one another, and don’t have to hear each other any more.
(2) It is easier to demonize if you hear demonization as a staple of your information package. The rise of the internet and multi-channel television as primary information sources (nobody reads newspapers anymore, apparently) has had, in my view, two negative effects: (a) it has given people the means to listen only to people of like mind, and (b) it has given a platform to the fringes (e.g. the “birthers”). Information is a stubborn thing. The more you know about the other point of view, the less likely you are to become a “true believer” in your own, and the less likely you are to believe that the other side is composed exclusively of knaves and/or idiots. The converse is also true, and that is part of our problem right now.
(3) It is easier to demonize if you are separated into opposing camps. We have two dominant political parties that have segregated along liberal/conservative lines (instead of the 1950’s and 1960’s model, in which both parties were composed of liberals and conservatives). Neither party has to accommodate opposing elements within their own party. Our congressional districts have become segregated; just a few are “contested” districts any more. In the “safe” districts, the political battle is intra-party, not between parties, and a result is that we are electing a higher percentage of “true believers” to Congress than we used to do. In Washington, the social structure has largely broken down, as I understand it. Very little of the old Reagan-O’Neil or JFK/Goldwater or Kennedy/Hatch socialization and personal friendship goes on between politicians across the aisle any more.
(4) It is easier to demonize if you reduce the other side to a label. The military (during the Vietnam era, anyway) used that principle to socialize soldiers for killing, which is not, for most of us, an easy thing to do. Our training reduced the people we were going to kill — soldiers with wives and families, just like us — to “gooks”, “Cong”, “dinks” and so on, all in a calculated attempt to make it easier for us to make the first kill. Similarly, labeling political opponents with exaggerated, derogatory labels (e.g. labeling Democrats as “socialists”, as “anti-Christian”, as “anti-American”, or Democrats and Republicans who believe in government as “sheeples”) makes it easier to demonize them.
I imagine that there are other factors at play. I raise these factors to point out that we live in a social/political environment in which demonization is almost inevitable.
Having said that, though, I want to make two opposing observations:
(1) We don’t live in the era of Eisenhower. I am well aware of American political history, and our age is not the worst Americans have experienced. Others have been far worse. As Houndentenor pointed out, the public discourse between Jefferson and Adams was toxic. Similarly, the discourse concerning Jackson and Lincoln was toxic. FDR was demonized. And so on. “Politics ain’t beanbag …”, as we used to say in Chicago, and politics gets rough and personal. Perhaps, along with reconsidering the value of personal civility, we need to get a grip on that reality, too, and put our current political environment in perspective. It has been a long time since anyone in Congress beat another senseless on the floor of the House.
(2) Facts are facts, and it is not demonization to state the facts. We are all aware that the anti-gay forces in this country promulgate lies about gays and lesbians, manipulate fear and loathing about homosexuality to their own advantage, and throw coal on the fire all the time. It is not demonization to call a person (take Tony Perkins, for example) who consistently lies about gays and lesbians a “liar” if the pattern is documented. Among the reasons that the anti-gay movement in the United States is crumbling is that the anti-gay forces have been finally moved into an arena (the courts) where lies can be exposed and demolished with facts. Without the lies, the fabricated research and the rants about the “ick factor”, what do the anti-gay forces have to say anymore?
Which brings me to Stephen’s list. Fox and MSNBC are both, in my view, part of the “echo chamber”. The Family Research Counsel traffics in lies. Media Matters, on the other hand, does not seem to me to fit into either category.
I don’t read Media Matters much, but I took the time to look over a dozen or so articles this morning, and, for the most part, Media Matters seems to be calling out lies and exaggerations rather than creating them. That’s not to say that Media Matters is not one-sided (perhaps that is Stephen’s complaint) but to point out a difference. If conservatives don’t like the fact that Media Matters focuses on exposing lies and exaggerations from the right, then conservatives should (and perhaps have) create a similar watchdog that focuses on exposing lies and exaggerations from the left.
The other day, someone asked me why I stay on IGF, plodding along upstream and trying to contribute to the discussion. I gave him a number of reasons, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I stick is that IGF remains something of a haven for rational thought and rational discussion, in marked contrast to other discussion boards like Gay Patriot or the comments section to just about any media article about gays and lesbians. Overall, IGF remains an island of civility where the dominate mode remains to discuss and argue, rather than insult. We’ve endured periods when that wasn’t the case (ND30 comes to mind) and we have our lapses (what is it with the “Progressive LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders” meme, anyway), but IGF has a decent track record for civility.
posted by Jimmy on
False equivalencies are the stock in trade around here. When a conservative calls for civility in debate, make sure you look behind his back, he’s probably packing heat, or at least a sign telling us just exactly who will be burning in Hell.
It begs the question as to how the debate became uncivil in the first place. Who ‘went there’ first?
posted by Mike in Houston on
I know that Stephen has an agenda against his former employer, GLAAD, but their Accountability Project gives a pretty good run-down of the “civility” coming at us daily. http://www.glaad.org/cap
Or take a look at Jeremy Hooper’s excellent Good As You (GAY) blog where he calls BS (politely) on the anti-LGBT crowd — doing a wonderful journeyman’s job with careful research & counterpoints. http://www.goodasyou.org/
Or finally, you need only read the reports from what that master of “civility”, Tony Perkins, calls a terrorist organization — namely the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files
posted by Houndentenor on
In addition to GoodAsYou, boxturtlebulletin is also a very civil gay rights blog. Yes, some like joemygod have fun mocking the Christianists. That is their right. But there are plenty of more civil voices out there. They aren’t that hard to find. I’ve noticed that some people only seem to notice the negative comments on a site or only the negative bloggers out of all the blogs online. That says more about the person making the observation than it does about the internet or who is blogging. The current media landscape is a big place. It’s easy to find plenty of whatever you are looking for, good or bad.
posted by Jorge on
As usual I dissent from Mr. Miller’s view that Fox News Channel is evil.
I place some value in personalizing my own position, on the basis that it’s a free country. My experiences are not the same as anyone else’s. I have the right to an independent opinion and perspective.
Facts are facts, and it is not demonization to state the facts…. It is not demonization to call a person (take Tony Perkins, for example) who consistently lies about gays and lesbians a “liar” if the pattern is documented.
Hmm, yes, I was taught in my profession not to make opinion, or judgment statements without supporting them by facts and observations, as you need to establish their validity. I would add that this allows people to use those facts and observations to agree or disagree with your conclusion and recommendation.
My preference when I’m serious about attacking someone’s character as a racist or a homophobe is to state the facts and inconsistencies very clearly but avoid the terms, as I do think they are overused and would cause too much of a visceral reaction. I will instead publicly question the person’s character. I want to appeal to my audience’s sense of basic fairness.
Media Matters in my reading always, always gets the facts right, then 9 times out of 10 comes to the most bizarre conclusions you can imagine (and of course it usually states the conclusions first, in its headlines). It comes off as having an extremely one-sided axe to grind. I find MediaMatters to be a useful idiot. If I want to prove in an argument that someone on the right is not a racist or some other kind of evil, that’s the first place I search, because anything there is to say on such a topic they will say. If it’s not there, it’s a made up accusation. If it is there, I take the worst they have to say and demonstrate why, in MediaMatters’ own words, it is a trumped up and dishonest accusation.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m tired of the overuse of the term “evil”. It is sometimes appropriate. Serial killers who seem to enjoy torturing their victims, for example. But the vast majority of people are doing what they think is right. Many of them are misguided or even deluded but “evil” is nothing more than a convenient way of dismissing and dehumanizing people with whom we disagree. We would all be better off if we eliminated this word in about 99% (or more) of its current usage.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
My husband and I took our 7-yr old to DC a couple of months ago. We had a private tour of the US Capitol. As we spent some time on the Senate floor, our tour guide discussed how differently the US Senate now operates.
Smartphones, laptops, twitter, etc… have allowed senators to spend most of their time away from the senate floor. According to both our guide and the Senate pages that were working the floor that day – most senators now work out of their private offices, using various techie devices to monitor any activity on the Senate floor itself.
Which effectively means that our senators are not debating issues and topics as they used to do. Even Senator Cruz’s recent talk-fest played out to an empty Senate chamber.
No, we don’t have a senator almost beating another senator to death on the Senate floor.
In fact, we rarely have any senator actually speaking in person to another senator on that floor.
Ironically, these techie devices are ‘technically’ not allowed on the Senate floor. As it was explained to us, senators are not supposed to use their smartphones even when delivering a speech to the chamber. But several (most) do – the smartphones/tablets are used as ‘cheat sheets’.
There’s obviously pros and cons to this situation. Senators can resource information quickly, keeping track of what is happening anywhere while a bill is being ‘debated’.
But what we call “debate” is not what would have passed for debate even a decade ago. In this most exclusive club (the US Senate) – a senator’s personal interaction with other senators – especially those from the opposing party – is more limited now than at any time in our nation’s history.
Our techie devices – communication devices at that – have allowed us to simply stop speaking with each other.
posted by Jorge on
If you think that your political opponent is evil, you are probably wrong.
Like Tom suggested, this begs the observation that while most individuals who debate politics are not evil, nor are most politicians evil or corrupt, some are.
And power professions such as politics attract evil and corrupt people.
It is true that the author does well to identify that the reason people adopt different ideologies has to do with genuine differences in how and why people prioritize their values. There are good people in both parties (and so on). He does well to explain what some of their principles are. That people prioritize their values differently also hints at the fact that different people will tolerate evil and injustice more in some areas than others. And to differing amounts. Identifying the good in a person during a political discussion or evaluation is very important. You can learn a lot by immersing yourself in ideology and values.
However when you look at politics for a very long time, you begin to see differences between people that boil down to character. I see a range of character in both the Democratic and Republican fields of primary presidential candidates from 2004 to 2012. Howard Dean repeatedly expressed hatred of Republicans both before and after his campaign. Hillary Clinton’s campaign rebounded when she shed tears. Ron Paul stuck to principles that would never get him elected. You see a range even within a single candidate. Barack Obama’s campaign soared higher with “yes you can” then it fell with “clinging to their guns and religion”. Mitt Romney loved to talk of his binders full of women. He clearly endorsed being for gay rights, but in vague terms and only when asked directly about his past record. And he got nailed over far too many 47%-type remarks on race, class, and ideology.
It’s in their unguarded moments, their idiosyncratic concerns, their body language. Being able to judge different people in the same party or ideology as unequal to each other morally, regardless of their political position, is important. Character is an important qualification that, fortunately in my view, decides many races.
Okay, optimism time is over. Because character is so important, the political attacks are here to stay, and stay they should.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mitt Romney clearly endorsed being for gay rights, but in vague terms and only when asked directly about his past record.
Uh, huh.
posted by Jorge on
Since you seem to want a citation, my citation is the primary debate in which Mitt Romney was asked about his campaign against Ted Kennedy in which he said he would be better than Ted Kennedy on gay rights. I cannot find any reference to that debate question.
So here is a substitute citation about another time he was asked directly about gay rights:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-mitt-romney-gay-rights-gop-debate_n_1192345.html
Romney said that while Massachusetts governor, a member of his cabinet was gay and he appointed judges regardless of sexual orientation, to show that he doesn’t discriminate.
“At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view,” he added. “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”
“When was the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?” asked the moderator.
“Right now,” he said to applause. He did not elaborate on what that increase would look like.
Despite some evidence to the contrary, I maintain my position that his remarks were vague.
Your link is irrelevant and unsatisfactory, because it is only about government recognition of gay marriage. I am not talking about legal recognition of gay marriage. I am talking about gay rights. Do not change the topic. You make an implicit and unsupported argument that legal recognition of gay marriage is an essential component to the definition of gay rights. Such an argument is false. Since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision, de facto gay marriage has been legal in all 50 states, consuming most of the total value of the rights and privileges still available to be granted by legal recognition.
I will otherwise take your attempt to change the topic as a concession that I am right.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I will otherwise take your attempt to change the topic as a concession that I am right.
Snort. You tried that tactic before, Jorge. It isn’t so.
Despite some evidence to the contrary, I maintain my position that his remarks were vague.
Romney’s statements of support for gay rights were indeed vague. Romney’s statements of opposition to gay rights (which include marriage equality) were a lot more specific, right down to and including the “NOM Marriage Pledge” I cited.
I’m not going to get into an argument with you about Mitt Romney. I’ll concede that by Republican standards, the man was a prince among princes in terms of support for gay rights. At least he pandered when he had to, running against Ted Kennedy. Most of the current lot wouldn’t even do that …
posted by Jorge on
Snort. You tried that tactic before, Jorge. It isn’t so.
The sentiment is mutual.
I’m not going to get into an argument with you about Mitt Romney. I’ll concede that by Republican standards, the man was a prince among princes in terms of support for gay rights.
That’s not even what I’m saying! Or will you likewise concede that Rick Santorum is the Pope in comparison to Mitt Romney? :\
I am saying that when and how one chooses to make atypical statements that aren’t base politics is a testimony to one’s character, regardless of one’s political position. There’s volunteering supportive statements, or giving detailed, persuasive information (“binders full of women”). There’s speaking convincingly only in response to direct questioning; there’s speaking vaguely (both apply to Mitt Romney on gay rights). And then there’s being unable to say anything sympathetic in response to a direct question, or volunteering statements that are very unsympathetic (“self-deportation”; the 47% remark; the I don’t care about poor people remark). Perhaps the fact that I am highlighting mainly comments on civil or economic rights issues is suggesting I evaluate candidates character on how progressive they are, but it is actually more on how sincere right-leaning candidates are when they are conservative or moderate. I don’t take outright refusals well at all–Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich come to mind here on the Republican side though I don’t clearly remember why. I apply the reverse criteria to left-leaning candidates.
posted by Houndentenor on
Like many Republicans from the Northeast, Romney (like Giuliani before him) ran away from any pro-gay positions when seeking national office. Being openly hostile to gay rights is a liability in the blue states, but essential in much of the country (especially the Bible belt). It was especially disappointing to watch Rudy do it knowing that he has very close gay friends (a gay couple even took him in when was kicked out of Gracie Mansion by his soon-to-be ex-wife), but sadly it was inevitable and necessary if he was going to have any shot at the GOP nomination.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Interesting that my earlier post (which included links to GLAAD’s Accountabiliyt Project, Jeremy Hoopers Good as You blog and the SPLC).
So much for civility.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mike, I am pretty sure that IGF has a filter on it that limits comments toURL one link per comment. I keep forgetting the filter (as I did the other day), and post with more than one link, only to find myself tossed into moderation. A lot of comment boards have similar restrictions. I think that the purpose of the filter is to restrict commercial spamming, not to impose censorship. It does get in the way from time to time, as it did when I was trying to give Jorge links to the Russia and Uganda sagas. My comment eventually showed up, but often multiple link comments just stay in moderation jail.
posted by Mike Alexander on
First, this blog is a new find for me. I give a hat-tip to long-time blog-friend Lori Heine for providing the path to your virtual door.
“””If you think that your political opponent is evil, you are probably wrong. Most liberals are not fanatical communists or amoral libertines. Most conservatives are not heartless and greedy or censorious prudes. People differ in the priority that they place on often competing, but commonly shared, values—say liberty v. equality—and in their judgments on the way that the world works and what must be done to serve those values. Beware of responding to a cartoon that you have created, as opposed to real people and the arguments that they make. “””
Yep. I’ve been blogging for nine years now, and facebooking for about three I think (too lazy to check the real number at the moment). My rule for comments and relpies from day one has been to respond to people as if we were standing face to face and having the conversation. I can very much disagree with you, and you with me, without either of us being “bad people”, “idiots”, “morons”, etc.
I especially hate it when someone says either “you’re ignorant” or, the worst “you need to do research and get informed! What that almost always means is that you need to read and believe whatever source this person is relying on, and it’s unfortunately almost always something like InfoWars and WND.
I’ve kicked a few people off my facebook page for excessive rudeness, and stopped visiting one blog altogether. It was a blog that I used to frequent and contribute some content to. We started blogging at the same time. They were my first blog-pals, and I felt a kinship toward the original founders. But over the last few years, not only did the comments section devolve into a pissing contest to see how snide and insulting they could be instead of trading different ideas back and forth, but, as the original site founders posted less, leaving others less interested in civil discorse to run the blog, the content itself just became insulting and unreadable.
posted by Jorge on
Well, hello then.
I especially hate it when someone says either “you’re ignorant” or, the worst “you need to do research and get informed! What that almost always means is that you need to read and believe whatever source this person is relying on, and it’s unfortunately almost always something like InfoWars and WND.
To which I would say, why should *I* do your research and education for you? If you are truly more informed and educated than I am, prove your superiority here and now.
I don’t go into too many sites like that, but maybe this is similar. What I find annoying are people who make blanket inflammatory comments and they’re not able to explain in their own words why they believe them, how it is that they “know” that it’s true, no matter how long you press them on it. They may put up a link, maybe even a long list. I read through them and I find they don’t support their point. It’s like they’re robots.
And the reason they don’t is because such explanations always have weaknesses, or require them to admit that what they espouse is not objective truth, but a subjective perspective which cannot prevail over another. So that at best it is a matter of assumption or conclusion. Far more typical is that the weaknesses are crippling, for they reveal solutions to their concerns that are either well within reach or which have already been achieved by the very people they demonize.
posted by Mike Alexander on
They may put up a link, maybe even a long list. I read through them and I find they don’t support their point.
Or they point to sources that regularly leave out HUGE chunks of details that directly contradict the assertion being made…. InfoWars… I’m looking your way! 🙂
posted by Houndentenor on
Sadly, comments sections are often that way. You have every right to delete comments or ban commenters whose behavior is inappropriate. I have had to delete some very old friends (including two pledge brothers from my college fraternity) for openly racist comments. I had no idea they were like that, but I have no interest in reading comments from people like that. I have deleted quite a few people over the years, not for being conservative (reasonable people can disagree about economic policy and other topics) but for being jerks about it. I’m sorry it came to that but I don’t need constant vitriol in my social media.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’ve commented only a couple of times on your blog — and I think both times it had something to do with music. I can usually find common interests with people, even when we disagree on politics (or religion).
IGF is definitely a bastion of civility compared to a lot of other sites. Once at Gay Patriot, I posted a comment about the Super Moon — and not a soul was interested. They went on pelting me with poop about some affront I’d committed against social conservatives.
posted by Houndentenor on
If my blog had any traffic it might have the same vitriol in the comments sections that others do LOL. Some boards are worse than others. Honestly the comments reflect the same kinds of things I hear people say in the real world.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I will note without irony that your blog friend regularly calls folks ignorant in the posts here (especially when the subject of libertarianism comes up).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lori often complains that we are ignorant about libertarianism and what libertarians believe or don’t.
I think that is objectively true, at least in my case, and I have no idea how to rectify my ignorance, because “libertarianism” has come to stand for a wide range of political philosophies, sometimes internally contradictory in the specifics of public policy.
As Lori put it the other day: “[T]here is no one, dogmatic “official libertarian opinion” on anything — except for the basic principle of nonaggression as a prerequisite for political liberty.”
I try to follow Lori’s advice that the Libertarian Party website is “helpful in outlining what most libertarians agree on” but does not define libertarianism, and let it go at that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am talking about gay rights.
Whatever that may be.
The commonly accepted definition of “gay rights” is “The concept that people of minority sexual orientations, such as homosexuality, are entitled to all the rights and considerations due to the majority orientation.”
Your private definition could range from the right to live in accordance with God’s plan as articulated by fundamentalist Christians (“sodomy has no rights”) to equality under the law to government grants of special rights of some kind. I have no idea. If you are going to go after folks for not understanding your private definition, then perhaps you should consider making your private definition known.
You may notice that I do not use the term. I write about “equal means equal”. I write about “marriage equality”. I write about “equality under the law”. I write about “equal treatment under the law”. All are shorthand for a legal concept, commonly understood, that the privileges and duties granted or imposed by law should apply equally to all citizens, including gays and lesbians, with no special rights granted and no special restrictions imposed upon gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation. That is a clear legal concept, not subject to private definition.
You make an implicit and unsupported argument that legal recognition of gay marriage is an essential component to the definition of gay rights. Such an argument is false.
Depending on the private definition you are using for “gay rights”, that could certainly be true. That is not true if you are using the commonly accepted definition of “gay rights” or more precise legal terms like “equality under the law”.
I understand that you do not believe that “gay rights” (as you define it) include marriage equality. You’ve hinted at that a number of times, and now you’ve come out and said it. But, thinking about what you’ve written over the years on IGF, I don’t think you’ve expressed your views, one way or the other, about marriage equality itself. So let me ask you: Do you believe that civil law marriage should be extended to allow gays and lesbians to marry? Why or why not?
Since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision, de facto gay marriage has been legal in all 50 states, consuming most of the total value of the rights and privileges still available to be granted by legal recognition.
That is not, simply and objectively, true. Lawrence ruled that the government cannot criminalize private, consensual sexual relations among homosexuals. That is all it did.
Civil law marriage is a contract entered into by two persons, a contract which, once entered into and registered with the state, confers thousands of privileges and duties under state and federal law to the married persons. Lawrence conferred none.
So I’m a little lost about your thinking. How did Lawrence affect tax law? How did Lawrence affect social security law? How did Lawrence affect inheritance law? How did Lawrence affect adoption or child custody law? How did Lawrence affect law relating to medical and end-of-life decisions? And so on.
I cannot, offhand, think of a single privilege or obligation that state or federal law grants or imposes on a married person that was granted or imposed by Lawrence.
Would you like to explain your thinking?
posted by Jorge on
The commonly accepted definition of “gay rights” is “The concept that people of minority sexual orientations, such as homosexuality, are entitled to all the rights and considerations due to the majority orientation.”
Precisely why I reject an implicit definition that defines people as pro-gay rights or anti-gay rights (and especialy pro-gay and anti-gay) based on a limited litmus test of selective issues. Where one strives for the good, one strives for the good. No, Tom, the gay rights movement is not a excuse to engage in ideological purity tests.
That is not, simply and objectively, true. Lawrence ruled that the government cannot criminalize private, consensual sexual relations among homosexuals. That is all it did.
You are suggesting, whether you realize it or not, that the criminal prohibition is insignificant in comparison to other marriage rights. I strongly disagree. I believe the de-criminization of marriage is central. So much for simple and objective truth.
That is a matter of freedom and liberty in a very literal sense, whether or not one can even live in a gay marriage in the first place. Or, since enforcement was inconsistent, whether one can live in such a marriage openly, with what level of social status, etc. The quality of esteem or privileges of such of a marriage nothing at all to the threat of being arrested for such exercise in the first place. Once you have the right to marry without being arrested, that allows you to live your life on your own terms. You can ante up yourself into the mix of human society to get your social status among your fellows. You do not need any government right or privilege to tell you to do that. You do not need the government to affirm, “equal means equal.”
Nor is it sufficient. The other day my local paper referred to a same-sex widower as a “partner” even though they had been married, which to me was a not-insignificant slight. They corrected it to “husband” in the online version. They could have maintained the slight, they could refuse to refer to gay married people as spouses, husbands, and wives. And they also did not have to wait until my state passed a marriage law in order to refer to married couples as married.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Frankly, your response raises more questions than it answers.
Jorge, let me return to the questions you don’t seem to have answered:
(1) How do you define “gay rights”, if not in accordance with the commonly accepted definition (“The concept that people of minority sexual orientations, such as homosexuality, are entitled to all the rights and considerations due to the majority orientation.“)?
(2) Why is marriage equality not included in your definition of “gay rights”?
(3) Independent of your reasons for not including marriage equality in your definition of “gay rights”, do you believe that civil law marriage should be extended to allow gays and lesbians to marry? Why or why not?
(4) What rights/obligations of civil law marriage, if any, did Lawrence grant/impose, in your view, other than to decriminalize private, consensual sexual relations among homosexuals?
Otherwise, I’ll let your comment speak for itself.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I do want to comment on one statement in your response, Jorge:
I reject an implicit definition that defines people as pro-gay rights or anti-gay rights (and especialy pro-gay and anti-gay) based on a limited litmus test of selective issues.
“Equal means equal” means just that — that the privileges and duties granted or imposed by law should apply equally to all citizens, including gays and lesbians, with no special rights granted and no special restrictions imposed upon gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation.
“Equal means equal” is not tied to specific issues. An “equal means equal” test is met if the government abolishes civil law marriage for all citizens, straight and gay alike, as fully as if the government extends civil law marriage to all citizens, straight and gay alike. Both constitute “marriage equality”.
When you assert that “equal means equal” is tied tied to specific issues, I believe that you are in error.
I’ll grant you that “equal means equal” is a litmus test, but it is a litmus test imposed by the founders and by the Constitution — the principle that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law unless the government has a reasoned, rational and important basis for differentiating between classes of citizens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m tired of the overuse of the term “evil”. It is sometimes appropriate. Serial killers who seem to enjoy torturing their victims, for example. But the vast majority of people are doing what they think is right. Many of them are misguided or even deluded but “evil” is nothing more than a convenient way of dismissing and dehumanizing people with whom we disagree. We would all be better off if we eliminated this word in about 99% (or more) of its current usage.
In general, I agree with both points: Calling someone “evil” when they are not is a convenient way of dismissing and dehumanizing, and we would all be better off if we exercised caution in using the term.
I would caution, however, that words and deeds can be objectively evil (morally reprehensible, causing great harm with intent), whatever the motivation of the person uttering the word or doing the deed.
An example demonstrating the difference:
The Third Reich’s policies toward and treatment of Jews (stripping Jews of the protection of law, confiscating their property, and, in the end, exterminating Jews in large numbers) were objectively evil, as were (in my opinion) the men and women who designed and implemented those policies, as were (in my opinion) the motives (ethnic cleansing) behind the policies. Shoah is a near-perfect example of evil men doing evil deeds for evil purposes.
On the other hand, the long history of Christian anti-Judaic policies (stripping Jews of the protection of law, segregating Jews into ghettos, confiscating their property, restricting the occupations open to Jews, expelling Jews from entire countries (England and Spain, for example), and the pogroms), is a history of objectively evil actions. I think that a fair argument can be made that the words inspiring and justifying those actions (Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies”, for example) were also evil. But I don’t think that either the men promulgating those deeds or uttering those words were evil, nor do I think that their motives (combating a perceived evil, protecting Christianity from a perceived threat) were evil.
History is replete with examples of good men doing evil for subjectively good motives. My view is that we should not overuse the word, reserving it for cases in which use is clear and unambiguous, because to do otherwise is to devalue the concept of evil, but that we should not shy away from using it when it is appropriate, either.
posted by Don on
I think the whole “good/evil” dynamic just doesn’t work. And for precisely the reasons you outlined. Even the Third Reich wasn’t acting to exterminate jews because they liked it. They feared them. For a host of reasons. That is why jews remind us over and over it could happen again. Fearing one another is the foundation. And if strong enough, you can build unimaginable atrocities.
This is why I am extremely skeptical of religions. Some build for constructive purposes, but it is oh so much easier to build on the foundation of fear. If you vote for this, we will have God’s wrath! If you don’t do that, you’ll burn for eternity in a lake of fire! All the religions have those aspects. It is up to their leadership which do they choose to emphasize.
I think that is the secret of this pope. He is not saying any of the teachings of things to fear are wrong. He is saying “don’t focus on that part, focus on this part . . .” and steering the conversation to positives rather than negatives. He has negated nothing. He’s just saying if you focus on the positive, there is nothing to fear from the negative.
And I think that is what Stephen is trying to bring up with this thread. People get angry and shout as a byproduct of fear. And the more fearful we are of each other, the louder the conversation.
Cutting foodstamps will not likely starve anyone. And one person cheating on unemployment isn’t really hurting anyone to an appreciable degree. However, collective fear drives both viewpoints. Fear of just one person starving and fears of millions mooching off of me when I feel I have so little myself.
The fear clouds judgment, certainly mine, and drives anger. The Seven Deadly Sins are all actually based on fear. And they are entirely deadly, but not in the way most people think.
Okay, that’s enough out of me. I’m getting awfully esoteric at this point.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Shoah was not evil, then nothing is evil. If the men who were responsible for Shoah were not evil, then no one can be evil.
It could happen again, and it could happen anywhere that ethnic/religious fear has deep and longstanding roots, and men seeking power are willing to manipulate that fear to fan the flames into action. That’s why it could happen to any ethnic, religious or other minority. That’s why it could happen anywhere, including the most “civilized” of nations. And that’s why the memory of Shoah should never be erased.
I do not believe, on balance, that the thesis that the men who designed and brought Shoah into existence were motivated by fear holds water. The record and the inner documents of the Third Reich show otherwise. These were men who believed in Aryan ethic superiority and set about to cleanse Germany (and eventually Europe) of ethnic groups (Jews, Gypsies) that they considered inferior.
Ordinary Germans and other nationals who remained silent in the face of Shoah were, I do not doubt, motivated by fear. Ordinary Germans and other nationals who participated in implementing Shoah were, in many cases but not all, motivated by fear. But I do not believe that to be true of the men who designed and brought Shoah into existence.
I do not believe in moral authoritarianism. But I do not believe in absolute moral relativism, either. Human beings do have basic moral obligations toward other human beings, and at some point, failure to meet those basic obligations is not excusable except by insanity.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Well, I do think that primary elections have increasingly become very polarized in both major parties — especially when the only voters likely to vote in primaries are (oftentimes) only self-identified liberal Democrats or self-identified conservative Republicans.
Maybe it was always like that — as long as Americans have had party primaries — but much of the especially nasty demonizati0n seems to show up during primaries (albeit sometimes from PACs and SuperPacs).
Sometimes I do question whether or not primaries are terrible helpful or useful. They do not really seem to have them in the UK or Canada (both two party nations). Then again I also question the wisdom behind much of our campaign finance and ballot access rules.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
One idea would be to try and introduce some sort of non-partisan class in American civics/debate skills 101 in middle school and again in high school.
I think I had only one — brief — class on American government in high school and it was (a) a waste of time/cakewalk class and (b) avoided teaching anything about how to debate effectively or how election law and party politics worked…basically it was like those old cartoons about how a bill becomes a law….
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, and an introduction to logical fallacies and how to spot them. Learning to construct an argument and refute someone else’s based on facts and logic would be a useful school. Good luck getting that adopted in most states since there are large coalitions with illogical and non-fact-based beliefs of various kinds who don’t want children to be taught how to think for themselves.
posted by Doug on
It might also be helpful if we got the money out of politics which might actually force a debate between candidates rather than just enormous sums spend on 30 second sound bites.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Years ago I read the entirety of the Lincoln-Douglas 1858 Illinois Senate debates. I learned a lot about the issues confronting the country leading up to the Civil War.
Thinking about that, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have debates that were focused on topics, formatted along the lines of policy debates, where a question was asked, Candidate A spoke for 5 minutes, Candidate B spoke for 5 minutes, Candidate A replied for 5 minutes, Candidate B responded for 5 minutes, back and forth like that with longer answers and the candidates engaging each other, in say, 20-30 minute blocks per question.
The current “debates” aren’t debates — their sound-bite exchanges.
posted by Sonicfrog on
The current “debates” aren’t debates — their sound-bite exchanges. – See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2014/01/07/a-call-for-political-civility/#comments
Yep. They are packaged talking point puke fests! Very few of the candidates ever really get challenged to answer a question spontaneously, because all of the questions are fielded in advanced. And if the network is considered “the enemy” and a mouthpiece for one side of the isle – which, of course, some are – the candidates from the other side of the isle are more and more refusing to even appear on the debate.
The only really interesting and memorable moment from a debate from the last presidential cycle was the question asked of Ron Paul about health care coverage. I didn’t like his answer, but you could tell that it was an honest one from the candidate and not pre-packaged swill meant to appeal to X or Y demographic.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
A semi regular debate — pretty robot and high spirited but also fairly mature and fact based — does seem to occur often in the UK House of Commons.
Listening to the presidential debates with the third party candidates online is always interesting — because their answers do seem to be a bit less “prepackaged” microwave oven type answers.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed on all counts. We don’t have debates. We have focus-group tested sound bites, and that’s just when they actually answer the question they were asked. How often do candidates just talk about they want to no matter what the question was? And we allow this to happen.
It’s not just third party candidates. The most interesting people in all the primary debates are the people who know they aren’t going to win because they can say what they really think. This is true of both parties. There’s a reason that the front-runners want those people excluded…because they will more than likely call out the “mainstream” candidates out on their BS.
posted by Jimmy on
For good or bad, when we started putting TV cameras in these legislative chambers, members found out they could be TV stars by saying crazy things. Suddenly the sausage making became entertainment. The sound bite was honed in this new arena where members no longer spoke to each other; they spoke to viewers. They were given a new tool they could use to speak to constituencies, those in their districts and beyond.
Civility gave way to a new stage. This his has been a consequence of C-SPAN on American politics. I wonder if MPs in the British parliament grandstanded in the way they do before those sessions where filmed and broadcasted.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Interesting watching of the testimony in Indiana this morning… opponents of the constitutional ban bringing up rational reasons for not implementing the ban and proponents calling opponents “intolerant”, “evil”, “corrupt”, “disingenuous” and the like. (Along with calls for supporting people “leaving the lifestyle” and lies about preachers getting arrested for hate crimes.) Because… Jesus.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Based on the reports I’m getting, you are right about the tenor of the testimony, and it isn’t surprising. Social conservatives are quickly running out of a religiously-neutral rational basis for the anti-marriage amendments, and well, what else have they to say?
I’ll be curious to see the Republican vote, both in committee and on the floor, as this moves forward in coming weeks.
As Stephen noted in October 2010, Indiana was supposed to be something of the pre-release version of the GOP’s post-2012 “Growth and Opportunity Project” report:
We’ll get an indication of how the the fight for the soul of the “New GOP” is going in the Indiana votes.
posted by Jimmy on
The Christian dominionists got their man in Gov. Mike Pence. Speaker Brian Bosma and his fundy henchmen, Eric Miller and Micah Clark, with a super-majority of like minded wingers and thumpers, have been all set to entertain some of the nastiest anti-gay rhetoric to grace our statehouse.
They couldn’t give a damn about Stephen Miller’s high-minded call for civility. Those who wage the battle for equality in Indiana do not have the luxury to even contemplate it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Freedom Indiana — the coalition fighting the anti-marriage amendment — is doing a good job, from what I hear.
It is headed up by Megan Robertson, who has long experience as a Republican activist. Robertson has served as precinct committeewoman, chaired a Republican ward organization, ran two successful Republican mayoral campaigns, organized campaign rallies for Sarah Palin, and served as spokeswoman for a conservative Indiana congressman.
I don’t think that there is any question that Freedom Indiana is reaching out to Republicans with conservative arguments for marriage equality, as Stephen has long suggested, and we’ll see how it goes.
Robertson seems to have put together an impressive roster of equality supporters — government officials of both parties, colleges, big businesses, and so on — and marshaled the funds to do a lot of lobbying and phone bank work.
I understand that one Republican legislator (Representative Ed Clere) has come out against the anti-marriage amendment. I hope that others will, too, when the vote is counted. We’ll just have to see what happens.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Opponents of this amendment include Eli Lily, which today argued that passing this amendment would have an immediate negative effect on their ability to hire and retain talent in Indiana.
As a leader of Out & Equal Houston, I’ve been in these debates before as well — and unfortunately, this argument only really resonates with people that are already attuned to the message of “equal means equal”… I’ve actually heard folks from the other side say that it’s okay with them if LGBT folks move away or decide not to take a position with a company because of this type of legislation because they don’t want “their kind” here.
For folks who — in the main — spend an awful lot of time vocalizing about how government ought to get out of the way of business, it’s amazing to see the blinders come up when it comes to LGBT equality.