Not all disrespect is based in racism

American political debate is in danger on two fronts. On one, the level of civility and mutual respect has deteriorated to the point that congressional "town hall" meetings become shouting matches and a member of Congress calls out "you lie" during a presidential address. On the other, some commentators assert that any criticism of America's first African-American president is motivated by racism. Former President Jimmy Carter, who says his upbringing in Georgia has taught him to recognize racism when he sees it, is the latest to see racism behind critics of President Obama.

For defenders of this president, who carefully avoided racial politics in his presidential campaign, the racism card is an odd assertion. No one doubts that there are some lingering racists in this country who oppose Obama first and foremost because of his color. But that doesn't make all of his critics racist. Obama's risky positions on health care, missile defense, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, the federal deficit and other controversial matters will attract critics who disagree with him. To suggest that all of those criticisms are founded in racial discrimination belittles the genuine policy disagreements that roil American politics. Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" shout-out was uncouth, disrespectful, uncivil, undisciplined and embarrassing, but I've seen no reason to blame Wilson's lack of manners on racism, unless you believe that being from South Carolina or being a Republican is indisputable proof of racist beliefs.

"Racism" is a harsh epithet, almost the equal of "child molester," that shouldn't be weakened by overuse or misuse. To ascribe any policy differences with this president to racism diminishes the meaning and venality of the word.

Harsh criticism of presidents and their policies is not a new phenomenon. Critics of George W. Bush went beyond critiques of his disastrous policies and got personal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush a "liar" and a "loser." Disrespectful? Yes. Venal? Yes. Racist? No. Bill Clinton also attracted a coterie of venal critics of his personal life and family. George H.W. Bush's critics portrayed him as a rich, smiling idiot. From the time he was California governor, Ronald Reagan faced harsh criticism who belittled him as a petty actor and then criticized his acting. Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for his "homely" children and his rural pastimes. Franklin Roosevelt called out his critics when, he said, they had even begun criticizing "my little dog Fala." None of these criticisms, as harsh and hateful as they were, were based in racism.

Obama, like his predecessors, will face harsh, unfair criticism. Critics will be unkind, disrespectful and uncivil, but we should be careful about blaming bad manners on racism.

Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, who might have been the first African-American president if he had wanted it, had this to say in a New York Times interview: “The issue there is not race, it’s civility. This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to our public dialogue.”

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.