Civil Discourse

Regardless of my agreement for or against the opinions Sandra Fluke expressed before Congress, no woman who sits before Congress or any other body of our elected representatives to express her opinions should be demeaned or demonized for doing so. To demonize or demean a private individual for expressing their views in a civil manner devalues the constitutional right for all to express our views in a civil manner. To viciously attack such a person, regardless of their opinion, serves as an effort to silence that person or others for speaking views with which others may disagree strongly.

Let us take stock of our character in our dealing with those who differ from us, who express views that are well removed from our own. If we seek to silence views contrary to ours we are functionally saying two things. First, it says our views are not strong enough to withstand critiquing and the expression of contrary views, a sad commentary on our views. Second, it says that this nation is not strong enough to withstand vigorous debate and the exchanging of viewpoints, a sad commentary on the state of the nation and our support of free speech.

Yesterday and today I have heard statements that the withdrawal of advertisers from buying ads on Rush Limbaugh’s shows is an effort to silence him and is an attack on free speech. To frame the issue in such terms is fallacious. The issue is what is appropriate language and imagery to describe a young woman or any woman on the public airwaves.

If Fluke had used derogatory demeaning statements before Congress, we the public would have the right to criticize her for doing so, for being disrespectful of the institution and its citizens. Limbaugh, like Fluke, has a right to express his opinion. Sticking to the issue, critique the ideas she ventured and her reasoning is most appropriate. It is another thing to belittle her in such a disrespectful demeaning manner, particularly of a non-public figure.

Would I want my wife, mother, sister, daughter (if I had one), or a future grand-daughter, or my colleagues at work, demeaned and demonized for expressing their opinions? Absolutely not! The public is speaking soundly and rightly that calling her what she was called is inappropriate and should not be part of civil discourse. The attacks upon Limbaugh are about his language and civil discourse. It is that simple.

Though he is a significant voice in the party, Limbaugh is not the Republican Party. That said, what is most regrettable is presidential candidates and many other chief party officials muted and watered down comments. Their statements come across as pandering to the public, to say something without offending Limbaugh which only reinforces that impression that he is the high priest of the Republican Party who like a grand shaman must not be offended least he call down upon you ill or even worse, political death…and no person should ever have such power in our political system. That said, the general public is speaking and to its detriment the Republicans have lost the high ground on this issue.

Stunning Thoughts

The following two clips speak volumes. The thinking behind such views and comments is beyond rationality and sensitivity.

Rush Limbaugh Denied Opportunity of NFL Ownership

Rush Limbaugh the conservative commentator mega-millionaire was approached to be part of a pool of investors trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams. Last weekend the news of his participation created a stir amongst various social groups, players and even some league officials. The controversy was so strong that the head of the pool of investors announced early Wednesday that Limbaugh would not be a co-owner.

The remainder of the week a host of conservative voices spoke out against the wrong being done Limbaugh. Noting Limbaugh’s love of the game and marketing savvy, these voices proclaimed he had been torpedoed by his liberal media enemies who inflamed owners and players with their lies. They also decried that he was being prevented from investing his money as he so wished, and such an act is un-American.

Since 1988 when he started his syndicated radio talk show, Limbaugh has been unapologetically and stridently opinionated. Claiming that he is speaking his mind and the truth plainly he has not only offered opinion but done so in a controversial neo-tabloid format. It is not uncommon for his facts and interpretation to be questioned truthful on a daily basis. Even more so, it is rare that a week goes by without one or two statements creating a stir.

Limbaugh is highly influential in Republican circles – so much so that only a handful of Republicans could survive upsetting Limbaugh on an ongoing basis. His clout in Republican circles was evidenced in 2008 when he urged Ohio Republicans to switch parties during the primary and vote for Hilary Clinton and putting the Democrat party into chaos. Limbaugh said "The dream end of [Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here." There were over 16,000 Ohio Republicans who did what he suggested.

Speaking of Obama’s Presidency, “I hope he fails.” He demeans anyone who has any hint of what he terms liberalism. He repeatedly demonizes feminists as “femanazis.”

In 2003 he had a brief stint as a NFL commentator. His career ended because he was too controversial and unguarded with his opinions. He became the focal point of controversies, particularly with regard to how he expressed his views about Philadelphia’s quarterback, Donavan McNabb.

Throughout his career Limbaugh has dug out decades old unflattering quotes of those he attacks. He has often taken the statements out of context and not balanced them off on later statements and actions. In his pontification he encourages his followers to organize, to speak their minds with forcefulness, to lobby against things that they think are wrong and press their ideas forward forcefully not only to politicians but to corporate executives.

The majority of the mainstream media more middle of the road than Limbaugh and conservatives hold. In this past Presidential election, there were as many editorials supporting McCain and Republican candidates as Democratic. One of the purposes of the press is to shine the light upon issues and the actions of public personalities, and Rush Limbaugh is certainly a public personality. The press summarizing his controversial nature was doing its job. The press is the avenue for airing and vetting. When he is the focal point and they do what Limbaugh himself has been doing for decades, he and his supporters cry foul.

The vast majority of NFL owners are conservative socially and politically. Most would have sympathy for many of his views. That said, the last thing that they want to have is for an owner to become a distraction for the NFL, for owners to be asked regularly about the views of one of their own, or for a team’s executives, coaches and players to be asked regularly by the press what they thought of some controversial political comment made by their owner. The NFL owners club wants their owners to fly below the radar and not be controversial.

The press and social advocates did torpedo Limbaugh’s chance to be a NFL. They merely noted that Limbaugh has been a controversial personality and will continue to be a controversial personality. What prevented his desire to be an NFL owner is his ongoing strident controversial opinions….the NFL owners club and Limbaugh are a mismatch.

Obama Is To Blame

Strong partisanship is dangerous as it creates extremes and limits the possibility of balanced policy for the good of all. On Sept 10 2008 on Hannity and Combs, Sean Hannity a Republican apologist trashed a guest for suggesting the economy was in dire straits. He declared “this is garbage you are spewing.” Hannity went on to say that the economy was not only fine but that very healthy and that the guest is an Obama agent a charge which the man denied. Hannity all but screamed, “You have to convince the economy is in bad shape….it’s all based on a lie.”

In these last weeks Sean Hannity has joined Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed guardian of righteous thought, in blaming President-elect Obama for the failing economy. Both are beating their chests calling what we are experiencing the “Obama recession.” Limbaugh on the radio stated, “This is the Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn’t done anything yet. But his ideas are killing the economy.” Dick Morris has joined them by arguing that as long as the tax increases are on capital gains are on the horizon, people will be pulling their money out of stocks.

Morris is held to be a thoughtful balanced analysis, but he is far from being balanced. One must never forget that Morris is a strong Republican who is making hundreds of thousands a year with his unbalanced commentary. On the surface Morris’ comments sounds plausible until one does the math. What Morris is saying is that people are selling their stocks rather than pay a higher rate of capital gains tax, and are doing so even if they take a lost on those stocks or have less net income.

Morris, Limbaugh and Hannity are arguing that thousands of people who had stocks worth $10,000 in the summer started to quickly sell them in September to present for $7,000 because they did not want to pay more in taxes. Let’s do the math, a person who had a net profit before taxes in the summer of say $3,500 profit in October was willing to sell and take a profit of $500 rather at a higher rate, say of 28% versus 15%. Amazingly this triumphant are actually suggesting people are willing to have less money than to more income. It makes no sense to me, and as they say in court, if it makes no sense it is not true.

Morris, Limbaugh and Hannity are absolving Bush and the Republicans of blame. They are blaming the world’s financial markets melting down not because of bad lending practices, poor retail sales, falling housing prices, declining production and layoffs, but because investors fear Obama’s tax and health care policies. These men represent one of the major problems with the right wing of Republican Party, denying reality when it does not match their ideology.

The genius of great political leaders and thinkers like Washington, Lincoln as well as Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt is rooted in their capacity to grow, a willingness to change their mind in light of new information and their avoidance of becoming slaves to ideologies. They had their partisan views, but they were realists. They were willing to change their thinking and modify their models and ideology in light of new information and what was happening around them. Many Republicans, including this trio, are blaming the lost of the White House, Senate and House upon the Republican party running candidates who were not dogmatic and conservative enough rather than upon a lack of great leaders and thinkers with balanced policies.

Hopefully Republicans will not listen and follow these three men who are far short of the genius of the thinkers the party needs. The nation needs a credible pragmatic Republican party that is not fixated upon holding firmly to failed ideologies. Unfortunately the early signs are that the dogmatic extreme of the party are increasingly guiding the direction of the party.