The Rally to Restore Sanity was a much needed break from the negative, ad hominem and vitriolic discourse that has come to characterize US elections and politics. Held in Washington, DC and sponsored by Comedy central stars Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert, the rally was estimated to have drawn over 215,000. I am, of course chary of placing much credence on crowd estimates, but even with a huge margin of error it is fair to say that the crowd outnumbered the right wing pep fest hosted by Beck and Palin that drew about 85,000. Though the margin is still less than I would like, a representation that there is at least a 2:1 ratio of people who favor sanity and compassion to intolerance, suppression of civil or human rights and divisiveness is somewhat encouraging.
One need not search for the deeply profound in the humor inspired rally, other than the affirmation that there are still a lot of people in the US who have not totally lost their sense of humor. But we may consider some very apt quotes taken from the crowd that seem to express the sentiment that inspired the rally and that may represent a substantial feeling among average US citizens.
"It's the first time a message like this has resonated with me," said Jonathan Dugan, 37, a product engineer who flew from San Francisco to stand on the mall on a sunny fall afternoon. "We need to get people to talk to each other in a meaningful way."
With politicians seeking to attack their opponents on a personal level and claiming to state what “the people” want, without ever taking the time to consult the populace, it is a desire profoundly to be wished.
"I'm really concerned that we're not agreeing on anything," said Jean Mathisen, 63, who runs a seniors fraud-prevention program in Seattle. Reminded that the country was bitterly divided over Vietnam and civil rights during her youth, she said, "I felt that back then, at least a lot of people wanted to work together."
The GOP in the Senate voted unanimously to block virtually every initiative of the Obama Administration, and now chastises the administration for "failing to deliver” the promised change. Such is the hypocrisy that now colors the highest legislative body of the nation. And the Senate majority leader stated openly that he “wished that they could have obstructed more," as if that were possible. So it is no wonder that there are people in the country who are frustrated with the lack of action.
But what remains to be seen is whether they will be rational enough to recognize the reasons and the mechanics of the inertia and vote accordingly. One might speculate that the Democrats could have capitulated further in order to gain GOP support, but we must remember the statement from the GOP leadership that no proposal from the White House would gain GOP support. So such speculation would be futile.
“People,” as suggested by characters as diverse as Thomas Jefferson to P.T. Barnum to Elmer Gantry can be fooled almost all the time. So the media hype, backed by billions of dollars spent by anonymous entities on ad campaign attacks, will undoubtedly influence some beyond those who have stopped thinking and seek only to convince themselves of their preconceived convictions. They are unlikely to be persuaded, and will only get confused if you try to throw facts or intelligent arguments at them.
Yet the best thing that could happen to the country might be the awakening of the sleeping, and sometimes apathetic, middle group of people represented by the attendees of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Not consulted by any of the horse race and dog fight pollsters, this huge group has the power to speak with a loud voice to politicians and perhaps send a message that artful dodging and mindless intransigence are not acceptable. The message might be that the electorate demands better from its government. That would be the makings of a seismic political shift not seen since the War for Independence from Britain.
But maybe it is just wishful thinking…
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Lessons from Arkansas
We are all, for better or for worse, teachers in what we do and fail to do. The impact of our pedagogy may be limited to our friends and immediate family; and it may possibly reach to other people, communities and to the world. And so Mr. Clint McCance, a commercial carpet cleaner from Midland, Arkansas has stepped to the lectern, perhaps unwittingly, to provide us all a lesson. Our task is to draw what we can of value from his teachings and see how they may help us make sense of an ever perplexing world. Mr. McCance also happened to hold elective office as the Vice President of the local school board, and so the concept of education should not be altogether foreign to him. This coincidence may seem ironic as we examine the wisdom which he apparently seems to be imparting.
McCance, an immigrant to the technology of the day like many of us, participates in social networking over the internet. Last week, he posted a message responding to a general call for people to wear the color purple in support of families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they were or were perceived to be gay and had been bullied. Several such cases have been made public in the recent past, and suicide prevention organizations tell us that only a fraction of all such cases reach public notice. Mr. McCance opined that all gay people, including children, should commit suicide and that would be the only event that would induce him to don purple. His vitriolic rant included numerous scurrilous references and offensive terms that need not be repeated here. McCance cloaked his commentary in a proclamation of his Christian faith and beliefs, suggesting that his views are examples of Christian values. But the tone was steeped in the vilest hatred one might see posted in any public sphere.
This screed was picked up by a former student of the school district and came to the attention of a wider public when communicated to a support group that serves gays and youth. The story quickly became viral as the words of McCance were transmitted across the internet at blazing speed that the medium permits. The school district promptly posted a disclaimer and condemned the statements of McCance and the hateful and bullying attitudes it expressed. Later, the State of Arkansas Education Commission posted an announcement stating that the comments were unacceptable and that they should not be associated with education or the State of Arkansas. It said that it had no direct authority to take action as McCance is an elected official. Apprised of the offensive rant, US Secretary of Education Duncan declared that an individual expressing such views has no business in a position supervising the education of children.
We turn now to what lessons McCance has to teach or that we might glean from events that his actions have sparked. First, and most obvious, must be the demonstration of the low level of public dialogue and the moral bankruptcy of debate that we seemed to have reached. Whether the commentary by McCance is the nadir can be hoped, but cannot be assured. His seemingly unprovoked outburst suggests that what we might want to consider as commonly accepted voluntary social filters on exercise of free speech in public debate may either be non-existent or seriously dysfunctional.
The ease and speed of internet communication provides wide access to a vehicle of public expression of ideas and opinions. At the same time, the ability to engage in such dialogue from the “cover” of one’s office or room does away with the face to face element that previously typified public debate. No longer does one feel compelled or constrained to consider the impact of one’s words on others who are exposed to the communication. Such consideration tended, in the past, to impose some social constraints and a measure of civility. That McCance is a publicly elected official is salient as well, in that the aforementioned filters in the past would cause such officials to consider the consequences of their action on the constituents that elected them, in addition to the social and political consequences for themselves personally.
The decline in civility is not confined to McCance. Politicians seeking national office suggesting that the answer to the problem of insuring those with pre-existing illness would be solved if those persons simply died quickly, and other politicians suggesting that if their views do not prevail that the alternative response should be the “Second Amendment” solution, a thinly veiled reference to taking up firearms in lieu of the electoral process. Another candidate seeking office requiring support and defense of the US Constitution apparently does not know what the founding document says, and another wants to do away with fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment. And so the comments by McCance, which he now acknowledges were “over the top” and “ignorant,” are not altogether aberrant in the context of current public dialogue. And so one lesson that we might take from the McCance lecture is that the costs of free speech in a democracy may be at time greater than we would like to consider or than we are comfortable with in what we might consider a “civilized” society.
The screed by McCance was not without repercussions. He reports receiving thousands of phone calls and emails mostly protesting and condemning his actions. He suggested that he felt compelled to send his family out of the State, based upon some unspecified threats. A social networking page was set up to denounce McCance and demand his resignation, a site generating support of over 60,000 in less than 72 hours. His business was identified so that the public could express its disapproval by submitting negative feedback to discourage potential customers. He was contacted by the head of an Arkansas suicide prevention organization to discuss and explain to McCance the terrible import of the suicide tragedies that he was promoting. Finally, he appeared on network television to publicly apologize and announce that he plans to resign his post as school board officer and member. While any threats to McCance and his family would be deplorable, such responses do suggest that the public can and will rise up to respond when the level of dialogue descends to a level that is too low. In other words, there still seems to remain “some” standard of civility below which the public generally will not accept without pushing back.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hopeful lesson that may be gleaned from this episode is that a society still exists that seeks to maintain some minimal standards of common values and civility. There are still a substantial number of people who believe that, although a citizen has the right to express opinions in the exercise of free speech, but also believe that such personal views may disqualify the citizen for holding public office, particularly when the office is to specifically oversee the formation of children’s character in public education. It can be hoped that the viability of such a popular view, weak or hidden though it may be, can gain strength and that its voice can come forward.
Regardless of differing views along the political and social spectrum, perhaps we can regain some sense of decorum and civility in public dialogue. What calls for suppression is only the idea that one need not think before speaking, and that one need not consider the impact of one’s comments before a public rant. Not to ask for too much, perhaps we can hope that candidates for and holders of public office will treat the positions of public trust that they hold with greater respect. If they cannot respect the office and cannot make the effort to educate themselves regarding the responsibilities entailed by the position, they should withdraw or resign in favor of others willing to shoulder the burdens that go along with the prestige.
These are some lessons that we might derive from the thoughtless, hateful and intemperate outburst by an official charged with the duty to oversee the public education of impressionable children. Though he lives in a small town in Arkansas, and will no doubt soon fade from public notice, in this regard McCance has indeed provided a public service as educator.
McCance, an immigrant to the technology of the day like many of us, participates in social networking over the internet. Last week, he posted a message responding to a general call for people to wear the color purple in support of families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they were or were perceived to be gay and had been bullied. Several such cases have been made public in the recent past, and suicide prevention organizations tell us that only a fraction of all such cases reach public notice. Mr. McCance opined that all gay people, including children, should commit suicide and that would be the only event that would induce him to don purple. His vitriolic rant included numerous scurrilous references and offensive terms that need not be repeated here. McCance cloaked his commentary in a proclamation of his Christian faith and beliefs, suggesting that his views are examples of Christian values. But the tone was steeped in the vilest hatred one might see posted in any public sphere.
This screed was picked up by a former student of the school district and came to the attention of a wider public when communicated to a support group that serves gays and youth. The story quickly became viral as the words of McCance were transmitted across the internet at blazing speed that the medium permits. The school district promptly posted a disclaimer and condemned the statements of McCance and the hateful and bullying attitudes it expressed. Later, the State of Arkansas Education Commission posted an announcement stating that the comments were unacceptable and that they should not be associated with education or the State of Arkansas. It said that it had no direct authority to take action as McCance is an elected official. Apprised of the offensive rant, US Secretary of Education Duncan declared that an individual expressing such views has no business in a position supervising the education of children.
We turn now to what lessons McCance has to teach or that we might glean from events that his actions have sparked. First, and most obvious, must be the demonstration of the low level of public dialogue and the moral bankruptcy of debate that we seemed to have reached. Whether the commentary by McCance is the nadir can be hoped, but cannot be assured. His seemingly unprovoked outburst suggests that what we might want to consider as commonly accepted voluntary social filters on exercise of free speech in public debate may either be non-existent or seriously dysfunctional.
The ease and speed of internet communication provides wide access to a vehicle of public expression of ideas and opinions. At the same time, the ability to engage in such dialogue from the “cover” of one’s office or room does away with the face to face element that previously typified public debate. No longer does one feel compelled or constrained to consider the impact of one’s words on others who are exposed to the communication. Such consideration tended, in the past, to impose some social constraints and a measure of civility. That McCance is a publicly elected official is salient as well, in that the aforementioned filters in the past would cause such officials to consider the consequences of their action on the constituents that elected them, in addition to the social and political consequences for themselves personally.
The decline in civility is not confined to McCance. Politicians seeking national office suggesting that the answer to the problem of insuring those with pre-existing illness would be solved if those persons simply died quickly, and other politicians suggesting that if their views do not prevail that the alternative response should be the “Second Amendment” solution, a thinly veiled reference to taking up firearms in lieu of the electoral process. Another candidate seeking office requiring support and defense of the US Constitution apparently does not know what the founding document says, and another wants to do away with fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment. And so the comments by McCance, which he now acknowledges were “over the top” and “ignorant,” are not altogether aberrant in the context of current public dialogue. And so one lesson that we might take from the McCance lecture is that the costs of free speech in a democracy may be at time greater than we would like to consider or than we are comfortable with in what we might consider a “civilized” society.
The screed by McCance was not without repercussions. He reports receiving thousands of phone calls and emails mostly protesting and condemning his actions. He suggested that he felt compelled to send his family out of the State, based upon some unspecified threats. A social networking page was set up to denounce McCance and demand his resignation, a site generating support of over 60,000 in less than 72 hours. His business was identified so that the public could express its disapproval by submitting negative feedback to discourage potential customers. He was contacted by the head of an Arkansas suicide prevention organization to discuss and explain to McCance the terrible import of the suicide tragedies that he was promoting. Finally, he appeared on network television to publicly apologize and announce that he plans to resign his post as school board officer and member. While any threats to McCance and his family would be deplorable, such responses do suggest that the public can and will rise up to respond when the level of dialogue descends to a level that is too low. In other words, there still seems to remain “some” standard of civility below which the public generally will not accept without pushing back.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hopeful lesson that may be gleaned from this episode is that a society still exists that seeks to maintain some minimal standards of common values and civility. There are still a substantial number of people who believe that, although a citizen has the right to express opinions in the exercise of free speech, but also believe that such personal views may disqualify the citizen for holding public office, particularly when the office is to specifically oversee the formation of children’s character in public education. It can be hoped that the viability of such a popular view, weak or hidden though it may be, can gain strength and that its voice can come forward.
Regardless of differing views along the political and social spectrum, perhaps we can regain some sense of decorum and civility in public dialogue. What calls for suppression is only the idea that one need not think before speaking, and that one need not consider the impact of one’s comments before a public rant. Not to ask for too much, perhaps we can hope that candidates for and holders of public office will treat the positions of public trust that they hold with greater respect. If they cannot respect the office and cannot make the effort to educate themselves regarding the responsibilities entailed by the position, they should withdraw or resign in favor of others willing to shoulder the burdens that go along with the prestige.
These are some lessons that we might derive from the thoughtless, hateful and intemperate outburst by an official charged with the duty to oversee the public education of impressionable children. Though he lives in a small town in Arkansas, and will no doubt soon fade from public notice, in this regard McCance has indeed provided a public service as educator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)