Raising the Bar on Political Discourse

I am usually not the one to demur the decline of society, but I am getting concerned that objective argumentation and reasoned persuasion are falling out of favor in our current political discourse.

It’s not that political discourse hasn’t been nasty before. Case in point—U.S. presidential campaigns in the 1800s: “Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women’s corsets (by Davy Crockett, no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his head to tilt to the left) was accused of hav[ing] unsuccessfully tried to hang himself.”

Yet these kinds of accusations, which we can easily dismiss as illegitimate ad hominem attacks, are different from the following examples in which reasonable arguments by opponents are dismissed as evil.

Take for instance leftist blogger Ezra Klein, who compared Senator Joe Lieberman to a mass murderer because Lieberman said he would oppose the final healthcare reform bill if it included an expansion of Medicare.

Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who argued that Republicans opposing “ObamaCare” are akin to those who opposed ending slavery or passing civil rights laws.

Or Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, who called Sens. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson "terrorists" because they oppose the Democrats' Card Check bill.

Or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Chairman Rajendra Pachauri who dismissed scientists questioning the panel's prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 as practicing "voodoo science."

What explains these distasteful remarks?

Well, for one, health care, labor relations and climate change have become topics supercharged with emotion. Emotion can often distort one’s perception of reality and cloud reasoned judgment. Further, reason, logic, and objectivity have long been branded by the Left as tools of patriarchic oppression that must be abandoned. That’s why they have been getting away with calling conservatives fascists or Nazis, ignoring the historical and philosophical evidence that socialism, fascism and Nazism are more similar than different.

Additionally, those opposing the proposed health care “reform,” Card Check and carbon rationing bills, do so on the grounds that such legislation has the potential to violate individual rights and greatly expand the powers of the federal government. That argument must be considered. Of course, we should not be surprised that those who either think government is the answer to most social problems or who simply want more power over others are enraged by anyone blocking the way.

To be sure, conservatives and libertarians also get incensed looking at how their opponents continually disregard individual rights and economic sense in the pursuit of some vaguely defined public good. Still, seeking to persuade by words rather than force, we should set an example in our public discourse of what it means to be committed to reality, reason, logic, and evidence.

As George Washington once said: “Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for 'is a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.”

Unfortunately, there will always be those who cannot be reasoned with and who continue to resort to personal attacks. Such folks should be ignored not engaged; let us not give them platforms for spewing their poison. It's time to raise the bar on political discourse.