Goldberg: 'Can Civility Be Lost if It Was Never Found?'

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online, has an interesting column about political debate and civility: "Can Civility Be Lost If It Was Never Found?"

He provides historical context to refute the ridiculous notion that civility, or politeness, has only recently, since Obama's election, suffered some sort of near fatal blow.

Goldberg writes:

Apparently, like Cupid with his arrow or a pixie with fairy dust, some magical sprite used to enchant America’s political combatants, ensuring that all public discourse was full of beg-your-pardons and please-and-thank-yous. But we have offended our little leprechaun. He’s taken his Lucky Charms and gone home, leaving Americans angry, cranky, and rude.

Or at least that’s what I gather from all this talk of lost civility. Personally, I’m not sure I know what people are talking about. When was this Golden Age of civility?

Goldberg points out the myth of this "Golden Age of civility," then goes on to explain what this sudden call for a return to civility is really about.

[L]et me offer a sincere denunciation of rudeness for rudeness’s sake. Let me also concede that there is no shortage of bilious, nasty rhetoric on the right.

But here’s the thing. First, it was ever thus. American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.

And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.

Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.

Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.

I agree with Goldberg.

Obama does seem to have a problem with dissent, and that's very threatening because it strikes at the heart of who we are as Americans.

In his first nine months in office, we've seen how Obama deals with those in disagreement with him.

He and his henchmen attack, marginalize, and, despicably, play the race card, all in an attempt to get the opposition to shut up.

Americans aren't about shutting up.

I think community organizer Obama knows that. That makes his efforts to stifle the dissent of his opponents that much more disturbing and hypocritical and dishonest.