On Civility

The New York Times
November 25, 2003

The Uncivil War
By PAUL KRUGMAN

One of the problems with media coverage of this administration," wrote Eric Alterman in The Nation, "is that it requires bad manners."

He's right. There's no nice way to explain how the administration uses cooked numbers to sell its tax cuts, or how its arrogance and gullibility led to the current mess in Iraq.

So it was predictable that the administration and its allies, no longer very successful at claiming that questioning the president is unpatriotic, would use appeals to good manners as a way to silence critics. Not, mind you, that Emily Post has taken over the Republican Party: the same people who denounce liberal incivility continue to impugn the motives of their opponents.

Smart conservatives admit that their own side was a bit rude during the Clinton years. But now, they say, they've learned better, and it's those angry liberals who have a problem. The reality, however, is that they can only convince themselves that liberals have an anger problem by applying a double standard.

When Ann Coulter expresses regret that Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal laughs it off as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop." But when Al Franken writes about lies and lying liars in a funny, but carefully researched book, he's degrading the discourse.

More important, the Bush administration — which likes to portray itself as the inheritor of Reagan-like optimism — actually has a Nixonian habit of demonizing its opponents.

For example, here's President Bush on critics of his economic policies: "Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper. It bothers me when people say that." Because he used the word "some," he didn't literally lie — no doubt a careful search will find someone, somewhere, who says the recession should have been deeper. But he clearly intended to suggest that those who disagree with his policies don't care about helping the economy.

And that's nothing compared with the tactics now being used on foreign policy.

The campaign against "political hate speech" originates with the Republican National Committee. But last week the committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares.

Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention — and crucial resources — from fighting terrorism to other projects.

What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists?

The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again — without saying anything falsifiable — that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror.

All this fuss about civility, then, is an attempt to bully critics into unilaterally disarming — into being demure and respectful of the president, even while his campaign chairman declares that the 2004 election will be a choice "between victory in Iraq and insecurity in America."

And even aside from the double standard, how important is civility? I'm all for good manners, but this isn't a dinner party. The opposing sides in our national debate are far apart on fundamental issues, from fiscal and environmental policies to national security and civil liberties. It's the duty of pundits and politicians to make those differences clear, not to play them down for fear that someone will be offended.

[Brian Olewnick]

Although I think Krugman is certainly correct about that Republican ad (a very low blow, imho), both parties engage in this sort of thing all the time and hearing those on one side cry foul is pretty funny. I notice he fails to mention the DNC ad linking Bush to the dragging death of the black man behind the pickup truck in 2000 or their campaign during the Clinton/Dole election warning voters that voting for Dole would result in more burnings of black churches.

As usual, there's plenty enough slime to go around on both sides.

[Monte Smith]

Let us not follow Paul's example with civilty, huh?



FYI: You'll also find that Chris A. included this op-ed in his cut and paste fillibuster that is the Today's Editorial thread. I don't blame you for not scanning that thread dilligently.

I couldn't blame anyone for NOT reading Chris A's rambling and partially coherent posts. I don't anymore.

But I have to agree with Brian here, both sides are full of shit if they think they can point the finger at the other. Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that Krugman is the one doing it here. He's about as clean as the aforementioned Coulter and Franken when it comes to hateful dialect.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
...both sides are full of shit if they think they can point the finger at the other....

Speaking of shit, Scott, any chance I can tempt you to dine on a bucket of the same if I offer the name Zell Miller as, perhaps, a political figure who is non-partisan? C'mon...Dem governor of GA, Senator of GA, campaigned for Clinton twice, voted for Gore, supports the President on tax cuts and the war on terror, has a new book out where he says "it isn't what team you're on, it's whose side are you on?"

Huh? Huh?

Nope.

Besides, everyone knows that Miller is nothing more than a turncoat. I believe Rita already pointed that "fact" out in a previous thread.

But in all seriousness, he may be the closest thing to non-partisan. I especially loved it when he stood on the senate floor with blown up copies of the Constitution behind him asking someone to come up and show him where it says there needs to be a majority vote for judiciary seats. Sweetness, gotta love that kind of fuck you spirit!!!

But I'd drink a bucket of Senator Byrd's watery shit if Miller truly WERE non-partisan.

On a semi-related note, I saw Daschle a couple of nights ago, can't remember what show it was, but he basically said that the resurgence of the economy is due strictly to the part of Bush's tax cuts that were approved by the democrats.

Yippppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee................

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
But I'd drink a bucket of Senator Byrd's watery shit if Miller truly WERE non-partisan.

Now that there triggered my gag reflex.

I'll give Gephardt the prize for *most partisan* for his recent remarks on the now-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. He actually said this. He said, "It's a Republican bill, and therefore it's a bad bill."

I sense that Dick is a guy who's eaten a bucket of shit or two.

I sense that Dick is a guy who's eaten a bucket of shit or two.

It's a Missouri thang......................

[MRS]

Dick Gephardt couldn't beat David Duke in Harlem.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Dick Gephardt couldn't beat David Duke in Harlem.

Hahaha! My gut instinct is sure he could. If Al Sharpton held him down.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Dick Gephardt couldn't beat David Duke in Harlem.

I hope you're right. I don't want him to beat Howard Dean in Iowa.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by bluenoter
I hope you're right. I don't want him to beat Howard Dean in Iowa.

Even if Gephardt wins Iowa, so the hell what, BN? He won Iowa in 1988 and the Dick train stopped there. If gephardt does win Iowa, that's the only thing I can see him winning.

The importance of Iowa and New Hampshire as must-win contests is in irrevocable decline, IMHO. They may not even be factors in future elections. Future elections very soon.

[graypencil]

One must notice how this thread has become a paragon of right wing civility ..

>>Originally posted by Scott Dolan
But I'd drink a bucket of Senator Byrd's watery shit if Miller truly WERE non-partisan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> ( Monte sex ) I sense that Dick is a guy who's eaten a bucket of shit or two.

I rest my case

Originally posted by graypencil
One must notice how this thread has become a paragon of right wing civility ..

>>Originally posted by Scott Dolan
But I'd drink a bucket of Senator Byrd's watery shit if Miller truly WERE non-partisan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> ( Monte sex ) I sense that Dick is a guy who's eaten a bucket of shit or two.

I rest my case

Sorry brother pencil. I really didn't mean to throw so many big words at you all at once, but if you can, try and get someone to read this line from one of my previous posts out loud to you:

both sides are full of shit if they think they can point the finger at the other.

Or, in other words, both sides are equally uncivil towards each other.

Um, I rest MY case.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by graypencil

>> ( Monte sex ) I sense that Dick is a guy who's eaten a bucket of shit or two.

I guess that's a Freudian slip, huh, Graype? I mean, that should be "Monte sez."

Disturbing.

But as to the "Dick's a guy who has eaten a bucket of shit" comment: ya got me. I was being uncivil as hell.

And I rest my case.

[MRS]

. . .hear the one about the Freudian slip at Thanksgiving? Everyone sits down at the table, and the husband says to the wife: "Pass the biscuits, you bitch!"

(from the same history professor who told us never to vote for any member of a political party with the word 'American' in the title)

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
The importance of Iowa and New Hampshire as must-win contests is in irrevocable decline, IMHO. They may not even be factors in future elections. Future elections very soon.

Why? This year, with the front-loaded primary/caucus schedule, they're more important than ever.

Scott--I don't think you grasped GP's point. I believe he was complaining about the crudeness and vulgarity of the insults on this thread, not complaining that the insults weren't bipartisan.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by bluenoter
Why? This year, with the front-loaded primary/caucus schedule, they're more important than ever.

Well particularly Iowa, BN. Iowa isn't even an election. it's a get-out-the-activists campaign. Since it emerged in the 70s, the Iowa caucus has produced just one Democrat winner who ended up getting elected President. That was Jimmy Carter in 1976--and even then he came in second to "undecided!"

[Paul B]

He's about as clean as the aforementioned Coulter and Franken when it comes to hateful dialect.

The comparison is hardly logical. Krugman isn't a ranter like Ms. Coulter, who has nothing but bile and anger to spew forth (and who is proof that "Republican intellectual" is an oxymoron). Of course, bile and anger are the very core of the right's thought process: anger that blacks, gays, and women have rights; anger about taxes. They even seem angry that the government exists in the first place (though one wonders how they can be so into "democracy" when they're all about dissolving government.)

The right rants, the left (perhaps unfortunately) reacts: yes, both are uncivil. But I'll take the side with brains over the side with brawn.

Bye-ya.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Well particularly Iowa, BN. Iowa isn't even an election. it's a get-out-the-activists campaign. Since it emerged in the 70s, the Iowa caucus has produced just one Democrat winner who ended up getting elected President. That was Jimmy Carter in 1976--and even then he came in second to "undecided!"

One doesn't have to win Iowa, but one must win, place, or show. Don't take my word for it; look at the leading presidential contenders' websites and see how much effort they're putting into Iowa.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by bluenoter
One doesn't have to win Iowa, but one must win, place, or show. Don't take my word for it; look at the leading presidential contenders' websites and see how much effort they're putting into Iowa.

That's true, BN.

[bluenoter]

BTW, today I became an official supporter of the Dean for America campaign with a generous $10 contribution.

Originally posted by bluenoter


Scott--I don't think you grasped GP's point. I believe he was complaining about the crudeness and vulgarity of the insults on this thread, not complaining that the insults weren't bipartisan.

You may be right, Rita. Lets review:

Originally posted by graypencil
One must notice how this thread has become a paragon of right wing civility ....

Oh my, how could I have possibly confused that for a partisan attack?



Oh, and to Bye-ya. The fact that you compare Krugman ONLY against Coulter exposes your own slant. The right rants. The left reacts? Alllllllllllright. Michael Moore debates, Al Franken intellectually asserts. You have my sympathies.

Anger at blacks? Anger at women? What the fuck are you even talking about here?

Disolving government? Douchebag, why not look up how much Bush has expanded government since he took office. Does that make him a lefty? Oh goody, that means he's in the brains camp. Won't Chris be pleased.

Bye-ya's note to self:

Dear Bye-ya

Try finding some facts BEFORE you start arguing them. (before being the key word here)

Love,

Bye-ya!

[Paul B]

Uh, Mr. Dolan: the Republican mantra for as long as anyone can remember has been one of less big government; the party loves nothing more than to talk about shrinking government (and the services that actually help people). So spare me.

And you're the one who compared Krugman to Coulter (and Franken). So I'm slanted? Spare me.

As for the douchebag comment, you prove my point: all the right can do is rant. I could call you a name, but it wouldn't be worth it. But I know that sort of thing makes you folks feel good, so let loose with some more. Please. You're a real genius with it.

And perhaps one of these days YOU will actually express a coherent, well-thought idea over here (on the Alley, that is; one never expects anything from the likes of you and Monte on a music thread).

Happy Thanksgiving my good man.

BYE-YA.

[bluenoter]

Scott--I believe GP meant that right-wingers were being uncivil, not that they were directing their insults along partisan lines. Some people don't care for sickening invocations of "shit" in every post. Go figure.

Some people don't care for sickening invocations of "shit" in every post. Go figure.

Well, thats just rediculous.

Bye-ya, sure, I compared him to both a right wing AND a left wing nut(my oh my how slanted that makes me!). Yet, I didn't see any mention of ANY left wingers in your post for contrast. Just Coulter. Gee, forgive me if I find that to be slightly slanted on your part.

And thank you for pointing out that calling you douchebag makes it a rant. Your logic is sublime.

And once again, does the fact that Bush has expanded government more than most of the presidents that came before him make him a left winger? What about government spending that is up by almost 25% since he's been in office(which far exceeds Clintons own spending)? I'd be interested if you have any knowledge at your disposal other than the perception of what is right or left in your own mind. And does the fact that Monte and I show support for Bush make us left wingers as well?

How charming that anyone who expresses ideas contrary to your own(i.e. Monte and myself) is automatically incoherent.

How sad when you are unsuccessful in putting people in your own little categorized box.

You know what my biggest problem is? I just don't pay enough taxes. WHY, oh WHY won't the government take more of my money??!!



Ya-ya.

"Disolving government? Douchebag, why not look up how much Bush has expanded government since he took office. Does that make him a lefty? Oh goody, that means he's in the brains camp. Won't Chris be pleased." --Scott Dolan

• I nominate the above for the JC Most Ignorant Statement of the Day award.

So he hasn't expanded government?

[bluenoter]

I'd like to see more Republicans who think that they're supporting the party of "limited government" realize that they're doing anything but. If they really want limited government, they should be voting for whomever the Libertarian Party runs for president. Yeah! Come on, Republicans! Vote Libertarian in '04!