The Promise of Civil Discourse

My last blog discussed the need for civil discourse. One of the appeals of candidate Obama was to bring to Washington change that would include civil discourse rather than a politics of destruction. He promised to sit down with those across the isle and listen to them and engage in constructive give and take. I think many Americans were tired of heated rhetoric and longed for a day when our representatives in the branches of government would transcend party talking points and address our country's problems like grown ups should. Candidate Obama's demeanor seemed to suggest that he might be better at that then candidate McCain and at least a percentage of Americans who voted for Obama did so with the promises and appearances of Obama in mind.



Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.



Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.



I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.



One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.



The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.



There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.



All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.