[Peace-discuss] Against Civility

[Laurie Solomon]

>I like being rude. The problem with the rudeness in American political 
>discourse is that it’s often so stupid, not that it’s so rude.

This is a perfectly marvelous observation; one can only add that rudeness in 
Amerikan discourse is not only stupid but often violently hostile and 
outrageous absolutist.  Despite any dictionary or thesaurus prescriptions, I 
do not equate the antonym of civil with rude but more with respect for ones 
enemies as well as friends and a recognition of their legitimacy and their 
legitimate right to expression and action even if it is something that one 
disagrees with and opposes or considers wrong.  Civility is more than mere 
politeness and rudeness, although often based in stupidity, is not itself 
necessarily stupidity.  So perfect assholes have been absolutely brilliant 
in the construction and content of their arguments and points, whereas some 
perfectly statesperson-like individuals have been complete idiots and mental 
midgets in the construct and content of their arguments.  But leaving that 
aside, I really love the quote.

>Margaret Atwood once wrote that politics is about “power: who’s got it, who 
>wants it, how it operates; in a word, who’s allowed to do what to whom, who 
>gets what from whom, who gets away with it and how.” There’s no way that 
>could be rendered civil.

Hmmmm.  I guess I would sort of disagree with this statement in so far as I 
think that civil - meaning interrelations between members of and in a 
society or collective - is  characterized and defined by "who’s allowed to 
do what to whom, who gets what from whom, who gets away with it and how" 
whether it be in ordinary everyday routine social interactions or economic 
relations, or political activities.  This may be the fundamental reason why 
human interaction at the very core is uncivil.  It often is the nature and 
degree of incivility that is in question and not if it is or can be civil.

Just my two cents plain.



-----Original Message----- 
From: C. G. Estabrook
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:00 PM
To: Peace-discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Against Civility

[From Doug Henwood]

The horrendous shootings in Tuscon have certainly inspired a lot of drivel 
from
the commentariat. They were heartbreaking, but please let’s not draw stupid
conclusions from them.

Perhaps most annoying has been the call for a return to civility. Well, no, 
I
don’t feel like being civil. I like being rude. The problem with the 
rudeness in
American political discourse is that it’s often so stupid, not that it’s so
rude. The idea that politics can be civil is a fantasy for elite technocrats 
and
the well-heeled. I’m reminded of something that Adolph Reed once said to me,
characterizing a mutual acquaintance as the kind of person who thinks that 
if
you could just all the smart people together on Martha’s Vineyard, they 
could
solve all our social problems. Obviously they couldn’t.

Margaret Atwood once wrote that politics is about “power: who’s got it, who
wants it, how it operates; in a word, who’s allowed to do what to whom, who 
gets
what from whom, who gets away with it and how.” There’s no way that could be
rendered civil. The field of politics is constituted by vast differences in
interests and preferences. Much of the time, we don’t talk about those 
things
directly or explicitly. We talk about them in caricature or euphemism, or 
take
it out on scapegoats.

Some of the so-called left, such as it is, is using Obama’s speech in Tuscon 
the
other day as an excuse for rediscovering their crush on Obama. On The Nation’s
website, always a rich source for high-mindedness, John Nichols wrote this
(Don’t Tone It Down, Tone It Up: Make Debate “Worthy of Those We Have 
 Lost”):

It has been said that Obama strives for a post-partisan balance. But this 
was
Obama speaking as a pre-partisan, as an idealist recalling a more innocent
America — and imagining that some of that innocence might be renewed as 
shocked
and heartbroken citizens seek to heal not just a community but a nation that 
is
too harsh, too cruel, too divided…. [F]or a few minutes on Wednesday night, 
we
dared with our president to answer cynicism with idealism, to answer tragedy
with hope, to answer division as one nation, indivisible.”

Really, John, when was this nation ever innocent? When we were trading in 
slaves
and killing Indians? What act of “healing” will make this nation less 
divided?
The rich and powerful have a lot of money and might and they’re not going to
give it up easily.

Elsewhere on The Nation website, Ari Berman actually used the phrase “better
angels” to characterize the pres’s rhetorical targets (In Arizona, Obama 
Appeals
to Our Better Angels). (Uh-oh, I said targets.) This reminded me of 
Alexander
Cockburn’s great characterization of the role of the mainstream pundit: “to 
fire
volley after volley of cliché into the densely packed prejudices of his
readers.” But clearly it’s not just the mainstream pundit—so to 
alternapundits.
It’s not just that these stock phrases grate on the ears—their use is a 
symptom
that their speaker evading some complexities.

http://lbo-news.com/2011/01/15/radio-commentary-january-15-2011/
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss