For some older readers

[veronica_rich]

At the age of 38, I've only witnessed a certain amount of things in history, of course. So I'm curious about something, from people my age or older, who can speak best to this: Do you think the political rhetoric/discussion/debate in the U.S. today is more ... incindiery, or charged, uncivilized (use your own word to basically mean "less diplomatic/calm") than it has been for decades?

I'm just curious, not only in the wake of Arizona last weekend, but as something I've wondered for the past several years. Some of the remarks and rhetoric and arguments and words I hear now as a matter of course are the kinds of things that back in the 1980s, I only truly remember from shows like "D.C. Follies" or "Spitting Image" - parodies of politics, exaggerated for comedy.

Comments

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

I think it's much worse now than it was in the 80s, but only a little worse than it was in the mid-60s to early-70s. Of course, back then it was the far-left who were chanting things like "Kill the Pigs!", bombing buildings, etc, but that's not really a factor in your question as phrased.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's that the rhetoric now is worse, whereas then there was more action?

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

No, I think the action is roughly at the same level. Peaceniks protesting the war by chanting "Hell no, we won't go!" & occupying the offices of assorted college presidents vs Teapartiers shouting down their elected representatives and anybody who disagrees with the TPers at said representatives' public meetings.

But the level of rhetoric is (was?) definitely worse now. Back then nobody was claiming, oh, that the president was having 18 yr old men kidnapped off the streets for the express purpose of shipping them to Vietnam. But the TPers didn't hesitate to accuse Obama et al of proposing "Death Panels" to supposedly "decide if (Sarah Palin's son) Trig should live".

[gobsmacked.livejournal.com]

For this I can only speak from book-knowledge, but it seems that the 50s were an equally ugly time, with official black-listing of people. (House Cte on Un-American Activities IIRC)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The difference it seems, though, is that all it took was one person to bring down McCarthy - Edward R. Murrow - for disagreeing when nobody else would say it out loud. Things sort of tumbled down after that - and rightfully so, since the whole concoction was built on a house of cards anyway. The difference is that NOW, there are lots of people speaking out against each other, but none of it seems to shut the idiots up.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

In actions, nothing has really changed much. It's more transparent now, but we have increased social media exposure, too. In words, it's quite clear that everyone in the country needs a good verbal thrashing by Emily Post. I was there in the 60's, btw. Sure there were slogans and such but those were NOT being voiced by anyone with pretensions to political power, much less a member of Congress. If any representative or senator had dared to disrupt a presidential address with 'You lie' he would have been firmly frogmarched out by the Secret service. It simply would not have occurred to public figures to be so completely lacking in basic manners. I can recall a whole lot of US smugness over our legislative process vs. that of the English Parliament and most of us kids (we were kids at the time) were struck by how rowdy the House of Commons can get when we got to see a bit of it on tv. *shakes head*

So essentially politics have not really changed but manners sure as hell have. Our Founding Fathers, hell, our grandparents would consider 2011's political 'speech' worthy of a trip to the woodshed with Dad's belt, to be honest.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I remember a time when I thought diplomats were wimpy and old-fashioned - or at least people who argued diplomatically. But after the past couple of decades? Boy, I miss those manners.

[rlane33.livejournal.com]

I know I'm younger but

A) I've had similar thoughts over the past several years.
B) They have always been pretty harsh. I can't think of any specific examples, but our founding fathers were nasty sometimes. I think it seems worse now because information moves so quickly and freely.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I think you're probably right on #2. There's just more nastiness available overall, all the damn time now.

[rlane33.livejournal.com]

I now feel the need to say something nice about someone.

....

I've got nothing.

....
My dog is nice to come home to :) - that's where my icon comes into this

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

I have been watching CNN with my mouth hanging open. Perspective much??? I am actually a bit floored that you've asked this question - why aren't the journalists asking this?????

My father was a Vietnam vet - he was spit on when he returned to America. If my mother even mentioned - with four children under six, alone - that he was in Vietnam she was shunned from mother's groups, coffee klatch's etc.. She entered a gorgeous braided wool rug she made in a craft fair, titled "Waiting for my Soldier", while he was In Country and was disqualified from the show. The rhetoric was much much much much worse in the 60's. MUCH WORSE.

I cannot believe that the Dems are using this ill person's illness and horrorshow to further their own crap. *gag*

[joey112.livejournal.com]

I'm a Vietnam era vet and was always treated fairly and with respect. Just so you know that was not a universal reaction.

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

I am so glad to hear, j, that your experience was so vastly different from that of my father and those he flew with.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

That was by no means the reaction to vets anywhere around NYC or the tri-state area. And I remember the rhetoric of the 60's---the kids and protesters were pretty vitriolic, but no public figure ever spoke the way any of them do nowadays.

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

Boston.

[weyrlady.livejournal.com]

It's not really crap to suggest that people be civil to each other.

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

True. They just need a mirror, don't they? Thanks!

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I have to agree somewhat that the Idiot Radical Right's talk hasn't helped things at all. Disturbed people are going to do disturbed things sometimes, but making triggering rhetoric easily available at all times can't make it better. However, I have to say I've had enough of the harping on it by the Left - the same way I had enough of the harping on 9/11 by the time Sept. 13, 2001, rolled around. The constant barrage is pissing me off.

[joey112.livejournal.com]

I can not remember it not being the same. Seriously. This country has a history of assassination going back more than 150 years, this country has killed its own students,i.e; Kent State, has enslaved it's own people,i.e; black slavery, the draft, has demonized its own own citizens,i.e; McCarthy blacklists, has been ruled by fear and stupidity. So yeah there've always been vitriol. I'm retired and I cannot remember a time of true peace - when most folks were in love with Reagan I was on the other side working to get him somewhere else - like a retirement home.

Why yes I do find it all upsetting and absurd at different and sometimes the same time. But I'm old and tired of it.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's it. I'm just old and tired of it, and it seems worse for some reason.

[captsparrow4evr.livejournal.com]

We can't really know how the current tone of discourse compares to those in times past because the technology is so very different. An example: Most everyone who was around for the Obama-McCain election heard Obama called "Communist/Socialist", McCain was ripped on for being old and grumpy (and, yes, I even called him a sell-out). I believe it was during Abraham Lincoln's run for the presidency that someone called him an "ugly ape" among other nasty names. But no one heard those types of slurs on a day-to-day basis from Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart at that time. Nobody was tweeting how stupid Lincoln's opponent was. Would they have? Possibly. The fact that some of this vitriole survives in documents from the time means that there was probably a lot of name-calling.

It's just like with violence and calamity. We see and hear so much more of it today than ever before.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

But no one heard those types of slurs on a day-to-day basis from Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart at that time.

You have a good point with this, and I can't disagree. Having it pounded at you every day has a negative effect - I have to lay off the news for months at a time because I can't handle it after a while bringing me down overall

But this brings up another point, which I'm sure you didn't intend. You were just mentioning two personalities who talk politics regularly, but I see a vast difference between these two people. Limbaugh pretends to be a journalist; at best, he's not even a good comedian. Stewart admits he's a comedian and eschews any "journalist" label, but frankly, he exhibits more journalistic tendencies in a month than Limbaugh ever has in 20 years. The important part of this, of course, is that Stewart is a comedian - if he brings up absurdities, well, he admits that's his job and he doesn't appear on any news venues. That's always been the court jester's job. **G**

[captsparrow4evr.livejournal.com]

I really didn't intend to invoke Jon's name (because I love him and respect him to pieces) but my mind blanked on Olbermann's name. Part of the reason why I watch TDS regularly (and, yes, I do get much of my news from a comedy show) is that JS makes a serious effort to be civil to his guests. Bill O'Reilly never bothers to make any efforts to be civil to somebody he doesn't agree with, even going so far as to call them "pinheads" to their faces. I cannot imagine JS doing anything remotely like that.

I was noticing in the coverage of the HCR repeal debates yesterday that the commentators (ABC, I think) mentioned repeatedly how "civil" the debate was until a Democrat pointed out that the Republicans were utilizing a propaganda tactic employed by the Nazis, that is, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. All of a sudden, the Democrats were made out to be horrible "dividers" for daring to point out how the tactic was used. Nobody said the Republicans were Nazis, just that they were using a tactic that the Nazis had used. It just makes my stomach churn.

And, yeah, JS makes a fine court jester who I trust far more than any other TV news professional right now. Stephen Colbert, otoh, . . .;)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

My friend D has been saying this about the Republicans for several years - only she phrases it "tell the big lie and pretty soon, people will begin to believe it." I believe she might have even picked it up from The Prince.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

I was going to say 'it depends on how involved you are in the discussion,' but, looking at some of the other comments above, I'd have to agree that it has gotten a lot more difficult to avoid seeing it (if you spend any time at all on the internet). And the more 'room to talk' that some folks are given, the more they'll abuse the opportunity.

(It does feel harsher to me personally, but I'm assuming that's because I'm part of a large - and largely conservative - family. Since Bush's ousting, they've been far more vocal, usually in a very crass? rude? fucking abusive? negative way.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

It used to be that political affiliation didn't bother me - I didn't judge family or friends for being Republicans. But I have to admit the past decade or so has affected me, in the sense of, those who still think the GOP is what it was 30 years ago and ignore that it's NOT annoy me.

[beldar.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long piece on this in my LJ.
The gist of it is, this kind of madness isn't unique to this era, but now the kind of talk that used to be confined to the tinfoil-hat crowd is now up for mainstream debate (was gonna say "rational" debate but that didn't quite fit).

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I did read that entry; I've tried to cogitate on it. I agree with it, largely. As I told Snack below, the combination of 24-hour news cycles and crazies being able to find each other on the Internet has really ramped things up, definitely - as for the quality of rhetoric, for me that's still up for debate because I don't KNOW what it was like decades ago.

[the-dark-snack.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's changed at all. The problem is that more people have access to the ability to get their thoughts heard. This innundation has just made us notice it more.

It's the same way with most political issues and such. We are bombarded with everything and it's hard to tune out the excess and realize that that doesn't make a few isolated events/ideas to be as commonplace as they seem to be.

Also, parents need to actually parent their children and teach them that actions have consequences and stop trying to be their friends and let them get away with anything. This path is leading us to destruction.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Yep, between the Internet where crazies can find each other, and the 24-hour news cycles that depend on making a big deal out of absolutely everything (and scandal to keep their jobs safe), I definitely think things have gotten worse - in the sense of there being so much more visible, if not the quality of the rhetoric.

[ericadawn16.livejournal.com]

I know I'm too young but...

They did a study of campaign ads and found they were more negative from last time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/midtermelectionmostnegativeeverstudysays (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/midtermelectionmostnegativeeverstudysays)

and the Wisconsin Advertising Project mentioned in that article had already concluded in 2008 that 2008 was worse than 2004.

http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=131577 (http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=131577)

However, when Jon Stewart was asking why the Republicans were so vicious towards the President and how the liberals hadn't been that way with Bush, I wanted to call bullshit. Does he not remember how they actually three eggs at the limo during the inauguration? It all seems the same to me except that the access has changed which makes it more dangerous. People with extreme views can finds others like them more easily and Fox news has become the most watched cable network which brings us to another problem. At least in the old days, there was the Fairness Doctrine, you had to see both views to a side and it had to be fair. Now that it's abolished and you have cable, a person could go their whole life only seeing the side they agree with. I find this very dangerous.

Anyway, the real reason I was making a comment was to ask...so did you see Flynn Bloom? The photo's out now.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I will agree that there's been negativity on both sides in the past decade; you can't say there was none from the Dems against Bush and the Republicans. However, let's examine something:

1. I think a lot of this goes back to Bush the elder's Willie Horton ads in 1988. I was near voting age when those aired, and they were nasty for the time. Now, of course, they'd be par for the course.

2. Kenneth Starr as special prosecutor, and a Republican Congress SO intent on finding ANYTHING on Clinton that they impeached him on lying under oath about an affair. With an intern who had no political influence that would affect the job he was doing. That was some special abuse of our legal system, right there.

3. But perhaps the worst thing I can think of was the smearing and slandering of John Kerry's service record in the 2004 campaign. Here you had a proven draft-dodger excused from service by his daddy's influence - who couldn't even show up for his stateside meetings - who managed to make a Silver Star recipient from Vietnam look bad. More special fuckery - from the Republicans.

I could go on, but do I really need to?

Let's face it: Liberals' criticism of Bush and Co. was mostly founded. These people were more crooked than a dog's hind leg, started not one, but TWO illegal wars on no evidence. (Though the Democrats aren't much better - many of them voted in late 2002 to give Bush unlimited war powers, and should have been knocked in the back of the head for it. Literally - not hard enough to cause brain damage, but enough to make them think again.)

(Yeah, I saw the baby. It's red and I still don't want one, LOL. But I'm happy for the couple!)

[ericadawn16.livejournal.com]

(Though the Democrats aren't much better - many of them voted in late 2002 to give Bush unlimited war powers, and should have been knocked in the back of the head for it. Literally - not hard enough to cause brain damage, but enough to make them think again.)

Yep, I agree entirely and now the fucking Republicans voted that it's okay for insurance companies to kill people again!