discourse

I start this post hoping that most of us can agree that contemporary political discourse is problematic. The oversized egos of television and radio commentators and news personalities, accompanied by the narcissistic and moralistic tone of most politicians, leaves us with lots of posturing and little change.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter in the Bush administration and a current columnist in the Washington Post, decided to wade into this topic in his latest piece. Gerson sees discourse breaking down into two parties: the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party. In differentiating the two, Gerson rightly attributes all dialogue which wishes death upon people or likens them to a disease to the Ugly Party. For instance, Ann Coulter's lamentation that the terrorists did not also hit the New York Times building, or that Mike Malloy, a radio talk show host, stating that he believed Glenn Beck should blow his brains out. I have no problem with Gerson's scolding here -- we need more of it.

I do have a problem with his alternative, however. Gerson explains the Grown-Up Party:

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party -- less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-Up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute -- presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne Jr. and David Brooks -- on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Sounds nice, right? My problem is that Gerson's explanation of the Grown-Up Party is too regressive for my taste. If we are trying to engage youth in politics, especially optimistic Millennials, we certainly should be doing what we can to rid the political environment of divisive rhetoric (as well as produce a title less insulting to youth democrats -- little "d"). But we should not be doing it at the expense of access and opportunities for participation.

Gerson's "seminar" places the experts at the center of the discourse suggesting that they should be controlling this country's political discussion, not its citizens. Gerson anticipates this criticism, noting this approach's reputation as "stifling creativity, freedom and dissent." Unfortunately, Gerson does little to soothe these concerns.

While I appreciate Gerson's critique of the status quo and his call for a better political environment, I regret his admitted lack of creativity in constructing an alternative. This Grown Up Party, in throwing the proverbial baby (New Media) out with the proverbial bathwater (an indecent discourse), also squanders opportunities, to use Gerson's language. Today's youth are coming of age with heaps of learned technological experience, and while many online communities have extremists, just like offline communities do, the Internet can be used productively and responsibly and should not simply be dismissed.

I propose a hybrid of Gerson's approach and the status quo. Yes, our culture is poisonous, with dangerous rhetoric flowing into our discourse. The resulting animosity begets more nasty language and leads to personal attacks that immediately shut down productive policy discussion and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. Instead of attacking New Media, perhaps we educate young adults. Using deliberation in high school classrooms, for example, teaches students civic knowledge, critical thinking, and communication skills. This pedagogy could replace the boring overhead projector and transparencies many of us experienced in social studies courses. Maybe we simultaneously empower young adults, ensuring they understand that politics is not merely a negative, episodic adventure, but an ongoing marathon in which they can easily participate.

Dualistic thinking is dangerous, and employing it in this context threatens our ability to fully capitalize on the opportunities present in our citizenship. We need healthy rhetoric in our political discourse, but we need it to accompany expanded participation in the conversation, not eschew it.

A Zogby poll, commissioned by Allegheny College's Center for Political Participation, finds that 95 percent of Americans believe civility to be vital in effective political discourse, among some other interesting tidbits:

• A whopping 95 percent of Americans believe civility in politics is important for a healthy democracy.
• 87 percent suggest it is possible for people to disagree about politics respectfully.
• Nearly 50 percent of Americans believe there has been a decline in the tone of politics since Barack Obama became President; 39 percent say it has remained the same; and 10 percent suggest there has been an improvement.
• Citizens paying close attention to politics are four times as likely to say the tone of politics has gotten worse than those who pay only modest attention to the news.
• Radio listeners are much more likely to perceive a decline in civility than are newspaper readers.
• Blame for the decline in civility is spread widely, but political parties and the media are seen as the worst culprits.
• Liberals are twice as likely to promote compromise solutions, than are conservatives...

The full report can be accessed here.