Monday, June 17, 2013
In the early 1990's an influential Lutheran thinker, Dr.
Martin Marty, affirmed the practice of "convicted civility." He
observed, "People who have strong convictions these days aren't very
civil, and people who are civil often don't have very strong convictions. What
we need is 'convicted civility.'"
The future of any republic depends upon the active
participation of an informed electorate. It's built on a patriotism laced with
free disagreement and vital dialogue about our differences. It's not built on
just "getting along" or "bipartisanship." It thrives when
"convicted" citizens care enough to attempt to influence politicians
and their neighbors on issues that matter.
Michael Novak, formerly with Washington’s American
Enterprise Institute, has observed, “Our political institutions work remarkably
well. They are designed to clang against each other. The noise is democracy at
work.” Yes, freedom in action is noisy and at times uncomfortable. There is a
natural tension between parties that acts like a pendulum--if either party goes
too far from true north, the loyal opposition and concerned independents act to
turn the tide. So, parties win. Parties lose. They seek common ground where
possible. But it takes people being willing to take a stand on both sides of
the divide to make America work.
Unfortunately, more and more Americans seem disengaged
and uninformed about the political issues that shape their future. When
comedians or talk show interviewers take to the street and ask average citizens
about simple political issues or personalities, their answers are often sadly
pathetic. They don't read about or listen to news about political issues. As
Martin Marty might observe, they are civil but they lack knowledge or
conviction.
One of the reasons people do not engage in political
dialogue is not just the lack of information; they're turned off by the
negative intensity of what passes as political talk in today's coarse cultural
landscape. Talk shows thrive on conflict; the greater the conflict, the more
people listen. It's the motivated and involved that write the reactions to the
columns you read, but they often do so quickly without taking time to soften
their choice of words or better formulate their criticism.
It takes a thick skin to take the arrows of attacks that
come as a columnist or politician. Jack Kemp, football quarterback and
politician, observed, “Pro football gave me a good perspective. When I entered
the political arena, I had already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, traded and
hung in effigy.”
Unfortunately, when others see the scathing letters to
the editor or hear the heated exchanges on the radio, they disengage. Fearful
of such reactions, they observe and remain silent. To avoid conflict, they spend
their time with people they already agree with and never test their opinions
against the questions or assertions of someone who just might disagree. Such
lack of "convicted civil" dialogue hurts us as a country.
Leave it to Harry Truman to bring a little honesty to
politics. He observed, "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know
he's going to vote against me." Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic
Presidential candidate in 1952, made a tongue-in-cheek campaign promise that
made fun of campaign politics: "I offer my opponents a bargain: if they
will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about
them."
In the same vein, when a politician calls for the other
party to be "nonpartisan," what he's really asking is for them to
accept his "balanced" position. True calls for collaboration are
never invitations to capitulation.
Hopefully, good diplomacy is not about just getting your
way. Will Rogers would say, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie'
until you can find a rock." That may win a few battles, but it is a sure
way to lose the war. Winners never always win because losers never forget.
Effective leaders search for workable cooperation where both contribute to a
solution.
Passing Obamacare without any Republican support invites
partisans to focus more on repeal than support. When President Obama complains
about Republican obstructionism and negative comments about his administration,
I'm reminded of the words of Wes Purden, “Any politician who criticizes another
politician for being negative is like a man going to a bordello and criticizing
the woman for being scantily clad.”
Over the years, I have persevered beyond the first emails
with many who have vehemently criticized my column. I'm better for those
exchanges. I hope they feel the same way. I end as I often do in such
correspondence, "Even though we disagree on this, I'm sure glad we live in
a country where we are free to disagree and not get killed on the public square
because of it." May that always be so!
No comments:
Post a Comment