Restoring Civility

[Nancyro]

Christopher Matthews:

The first time I met Ronald Reagan was in Tip O'Neill's office. "Mr. President, this is the room where we plot against you," I offered, perhaps too gamely. "Not after six," retorted this debonair fellow about to give a State of the Union address to the United States Congress, plus a hundred million or so Americans. "The Speaker says that here in Washington, we're all friends after six o'clock."

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=356

A staunch conservative and a staunch liberal being civil toward each other after hours. And even before hours. There was a time when politicians could be combative and yet still civil. Those were the days.

One has to ask, "So what has happened in the past twenty years to change all that?" Was it the "borking" of Bork? The impeachment of Clinton? The wrath of Rove? Why has political debate devolved into so much mud slinging? How did it turn into the Jerry Springer show? And is there anything that can be done to change the tone in politics?

-

 

[rraley]

Both sides have been burned and have decided that they have to take action to "get even." In my opinion, you never really do get even and a terrible cyle of backstabbing and attack is created.

 

[Larry Gude]

First off...

...it is politics and rancor and incivility are nothing new. This is nowhere near the ugliest time in our public life.

Symptomatic of nasty time periods is polarization, whether it be over something serious like our Civil War or, as today, trivial made up differences.

Ross Perot hit a nerve in 1991, sliced up the county into his group, Democrats and Republicans. Then he left town. Then he came back. In the end, Clinton won with a minority of the total votes cast and this is never good.

His juevenille performance led to the GOP take over of the House in 1994. Had he won a clear cut majority in 1992 (or had he lost to Bush 41) this would have never happened. The House of Representatives is the most desireable of the three branches. It's where all the action is and any President is hamstrung without it.

You can't underestimate how serious a blow this was. For 40 years, (40!!), one party controlled the branch of the government most responsible for the purse strings of the nation. THAT is power.

It didn't matter if Reagan was hugely beloved and popular; he HAD to go through the House to get what he wanted.

Same thing for Bush 41, he had to deal with Democrats.

During the 'bloodbath' of 1994 all the conservative Democrats got beat by Republicans. That left the safe seats, the left of center democrats, in total control of the direction of Democratic opposition.

Viola.

 

[rraley]

Very good analysis Mr. Gude. Another development is the replacement of liberal Republicans with liberal Democrats or more conservative Republicans, i.e. John Heinz of Pennsylvania being replaced by Rick Santorum.

 

[vraiblonde]

There was a time when politicians could be combative and yet still civil. Those were the days.

Yeah, like during the Civil War when Representative Preston Brooks (a Democrat) beat the #### out of Senator Charles Sumner (a Republican) in the Senate chamber with a cane.

Those were the days, eh?

 

[Bustem' Down]

One has to ask, "So what has happened in the past twenty years to change all that?" Was it the "borking" of Bork? The impeachment of Clinton? The wrath of Rove? Why has political debate devolved into so much mud slinging? How did it turn into the Jerry Springer show? And is there anything that can be done to change the tone in politics?

-

Well, I think it's just a reflection of society. Violent mudslinging get's more attention to the ADD populace. It's kind of like a reality show. The civility and showing of proper respect only appeals to the few, and the masses change the channel.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

...OK but in defense of Mrs. Kerry's last husband...

Another development is the replacement of liberal Republicans with liberal Democrats or more conservative Republicans, i.e. John Heinz of Pennsylvania being replaced by Rick Santorum.

...he wasn't exactly defeated at the ballot box. John Ashcroft is right of Santorum and lost his race to a dead mans wife so, these things kinda even out.

What we're talking about is a sea change, not a seat here or there.

 

[Ken King]

...OK but in defense of Mrs. Kerry's last husband...



...he wasn't exactly defeated at the ballot box. John Ashcroft is right of Santorum and lost his race to a dead mans wife so, these things kinda even out.

What we're talking about is a sea change, not a seat here or there.

Larry,

Didn't Ashcroft lose to the dead guy and after the election the wife was appointed to fill the void?

 

[vraiblonde]

Didn't Ashcroft lose to the dead guy and after the election the wife was appointed to fill the void?

I thought it had already been established that she would serve in his place prior to election day.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope...

...Mel Carnahan died in a plane wreck along with his son (I think?) shortly before the election and his wife was begged to take his place; Missouri law allows for that. He was well behind at the time.

Nobody seems to remember the polls in St. Louis being left open way late, in CLEAR violation of the law. Events in Florida won the day. (2000)

In any event, they got enough votes to put her in. Had she not replaced him, his name would have had to stay on the ballot.

 

[Larry Gude]

Everything you ever wanted to know...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001017-0.html

'bout Mel.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think...

...from what read, Mel did win the election and Jean was nominated to replace him by the lt. guv who took over from then Gov. Mel when he died.

 

[Bruzilla]

I guess some folks are right when they say that "time heals all wounds." I remember very well the days of the 70s and 80s, the ones that are now being passed off as the "good ole' days", but I don't recall them being one bit different from today, aside from changes in names and faces. Tip O'Neill was a top-notch scumbag that most Republicans loathed, and I remember him sitting behind Reagan during the State of the Union addresses making his little faces and exagerated bored expressions. I also remember when O'Neill had Congress slip about $70,000 into the budget to build a miniature railroad on his estate... for conveying around visiting dignitaries I think was the reason, and the Republicans outed him on that, which led to even more fighting. Anyone remember all the rancor during the Iran-Contra hearings? Anyone else old enough to remember the Watergate hearings?

There's only one real difference between politics today and from the 70s and 80s, and that's the media. With all of the media outlets today, you're hearing about every little tiff, spat, and pissing contest that happens. These also happened back in the day, but all you had was CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS to get your news from, and they didn't discuss these things the way they do today.

 

[vraiblonde]

A staunch conservative and a staunch liberal being civil toward each other after hours. And even before hours.

One point you missed that my partisan self must highlight:

Chris Matthews, liberal Democrat, said "This is where we plot against you." Ronald Reagan, conservative Republican, said, "Nope, after 6:00 we're all friends."

When Democrats whine and cry about the lack of civil discourse in our politics, then try to say that Bush is an incredibly divisive President, it makes me howl with laughter. And a little bit of rage as well because Bush has been incessantly civil to the Democrats - it is THEY who have been ugly and divisive.

During the 2004 election you didn't hear Bush utter one single word of hate toward Democrats. They, however, called him "enemy" and "Hitler".

You also didn't hear Bush say anything nasty about John Kerry - in fact, Bush went out of his way to praise Kerry's Vietnam service repeatedly, most notably during his opening statement at the one debate. John Kerry, on the other hand, called the Bush Administration a "regime" and said they were the most "crooked, you know, lying group of people" he'd ever seen.

 

[Larry Gude]

One HUGE difference...

There's only one real difference between politics today and from the 70s and 80s, and that's the media.

...I'd say.

Back in the day (I remember Iran/Contra well, Watergate BARELY) the big three, ABC,CBS and NBC controlled the tone and timbre of public discourse.

 

[Bruzilla]

That's like last night, I was watching the News Hour and Gwen Ifill was sitting in for Jim Lehrer. She was talking about the headlines, and talked at length about the Senate Republicans voting down a Democratic bill to increase the minimum wage to well over $7.00 an hour over the next three years. The bill was sponsored by Kennedy, and the rate was set so high they knew the Republicans would vote it down, and they did along party lines. She also made note that this prvented the first change in the minimum wage in over nine years.

What she seemed to have forgotten was the fact that after the vote on Kennedy's bill, Rick Santorum had a bill come up that would have raised the minimum wage to a more realistic $6.50 or so an hour. Not as large an increase, but an increase none the less. She also failed to mention that the Democrats voted down this bill, showing once again that they would rather have the issue than a solution. Had just a few more Democrats voted for the bill, it would have passed... but then the Republicans would look good and they can't have that happening.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

...you seemed to have very little problem telling the story from both sides.

So, what does that say about her report? Biased.

Were they not capable of a simple analysis where you were? Certainly they were and in fact would likely have even some background on the way this played out. So, bias.

Do they not get it? Do they not see that their report was, effectivley, just as one side would tell the story and just as innacurate? Certainly they do. Thus, bias.

This is yet one more snowflake in the avalanche that has contributed to the complete failure of people whom wish to be news people to actually perform the task.

 

[rraley]

What she seemed to have forgotten was the fact that after the vote on Kennedy's bill, Rick Santorum had a bill come up that would have raised the minimum wage to a more realistic $6.50 or so an hour.

Indeed this bill was submitted for Senate approval, and yes it did include a minimum wage increase. The problem that most Democrats had with this bill was that it would increase the number of companies exempted from following minimum wage guidelines. I think that estimates conclude that over a million workers would lose their minimum wage protection under the Santorum bill.

 

[Toxick]

"So what has happened in the past twenty years to change all that?" -

It's the god damned liberals! They are, all of them, petty fingerpointing hypocrites.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It's the god damned liberals! They are, all of them, petty fingerpointing hypocrites.

I seem to be picking up some sarcasm in that statement.