Can't we be civil to each other?

A few comments about blogs, mutual respect and civil discourse. First, thanks to Ginny for her recent comments chiding some commenters for their insulting language and lack of civility in their comments on this blog. She was offended by commenters who couldn't express their opinions without using terms such as "freaks," "morons," "stupid," etc. I had allowed those words to get through, but I had rejected some comments that were even less civil (if you can imagine).

Subsequently, I was criticized by a commenter going by the name of "jamally" for "selectively allowing nasty comments." I suspect "jamally" was the person who posted an anonymous comment saying that a deceased public figure was now burning in hell. That comment was too much for me, more offensive than the name-calling that I had cringingly allowed. I wish Blogger's software would allow me to edit out offensive portions of comments while leaving the civil opinions, but it doesn't.

The nasty comments on this blog — and the even nastier comments that often appear on major newspapers' news articles — testify to the loss of civil discourse and mutual respect in this country, especially regarding political issues. The spread of the anonymous Internet culture has contributed to this. Hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, some people feel comfortable saying whatever vile, insulting remarks that come to mind. Cable television has also contributed to this cultural shift. To feed the 24-hour news monster, stations turn to discussion groups, always pitting true believers from opposite sides against each other. At times, tempers flare and opinions give way to insults. Such nastiness infects all of society. This goes back a long way. William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal famously got into a shouting match while offering commentary on the 1968 presidential campaign.

Two people can disagree and remain civil and respectful. Upon this principle is built the American tradition of democratic debate and compromise. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats have hardened their positions and often portray their opposition's position as the embodiment of evil, even when their differences are slight. Ted Kennedy, who has been lauded this week for his skills at compromising with the opposition, was also guilty of demonizing people he opposed, such as Robert Bork. His opponents' portrayal of George W. Bush as a satanic idiot has been matched, maybe surpassed, by Barack Obama's opponents' portrayal of him as a Muslim ineligible for the presidency. Can we no longer accept our presidents as honorable people with whom we disagree? Must we also think of them as malevolent?

Disagreement can be civil. I offer this example by commenter MP, who strongly disagreed with my post about prosecution of CIA agents over detainee interrogations. His response was rational and directed to the issue itself, and he achieved the goal of argumentation: making his point. I agree with him to a large degree. The United States must uphold its humanitarian principles, even in matters of espionage and interrogation. My concern is that the United States should not prosecute its employees in 2009 for actions the government itself authorized in 2004.