On Civil Discourse

By Sunny Fry

A couple of things have happened recently which create a wild and improbable sense of optimism in me. Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. Peggy Noonan wrote a marvelous opinion about it. Air America went off the air. The Supreme Court said speech is speech, and can't be curtailed because an entity is rich/poor/unpopular/popular. And I discovered that the largest political demographic in the United States is independents, many of whom swept Mr. Obama to victory -- and turned around and elected Scott Brown.

Those who see Mr. Brown as a vindication of the hardline Republican tendency of late to want to purify the party of all but true believers will, I think, be disappointed. He's a Republican from a blue state. In South Carolina, he'd fail that strict litmus test -- he's pro-life personally (apparently), and backs parental notification and bans on partial birth abortion. But he considers Roe v. Wade established law, and says he has no plans to try to challenge it. His position on gay marriage pretty much mirrors Mr. Obama's, which fact he's pointed out -- he supports civil unions, but thinks it should be left to the states and considers the issue settled in Massachusetts.

Okay, so what makes me optimistic about Scott Brown? He's not a savior, and it's probable that some of his personal oddities will create uncomfortable moments. He's clearly a savvy political player. And when asked, he said he supports the president's positions on Afghanistan and on gay marriage, with a handful of other things. Oh, yeah. And not only did he have areas where he explicitly commends President Obama, but he ran a much cleaner and more upbeat campaign than his opponent (unscripted, unmanageable weirdness by supporters aside; Coakley had worse, and her campaign was dirtier.)

In other words, he's not a politician whose position is based on "against".

Which is where I bring in Air America. I never listened to it. There's not a huge market in South Carolina. But the articles I've read about it suggested that its programming tended not to be arguments supporting liberal position, but a litany of why Rush/Hannity were Bad. That's a policy of "against."

During the Bush years, the Democrats were the party of "against." The war is lost. Soldiers are terrorizing people. Cheney/Halliburton/oil companies/General Betray-us. Mostly, Bush is stupid and a puppet of Cheney. All little simple slogans designed to stop thoughtful discussion. Moveon.org was a master at that game.

Now the positions have switched, and the Republicans are the big No Monsters. The "you lie!" and Waterloo party. Granted, they're my party, so I'm a little more sympathetic -- you can't hand the opposition a zillion page bill at the 11th hour and expect them to vote in favor of it. Still, while there have been some sane voices speaking to the wind, opposition has more evidenced in "No," than, "What if we tried this?" Nobody gets a pass in my book, and behavior designed to appeal to the primal 5 year old in all of us doesn't thrill me. The Democrats knew just what they were setting up, a scenario where the Reps nearly had to unify in opposition; and the Republicans set it up so their intransigence was itself a real obstacle to any possible good-faith effort of any Democratic member to seek bipartisanship.

Okay, I'm wandering all over the place, so I'll move to the Supreme Court and the independent voter. The SCOTUS ruling, despite dire warnings (and headlines!) to the contrary, didn't lift the cap on corporate contributions to campaigns, but lifted the ban on corporate spending on advertising about a particular candidate. The doomsayers proclaim "The court has said money=speech!" But the court said nothing of the sort. Speech in the form of advertising is still speech, and costs money -- but it's still speech. And it occurs to me, with all the same thought-stopping sound bites like "big oil" and "corporate greed" and "big banks" looming as boogeymen ready to use their advertising dollars to purchase voter souls that -- well, they've got a right to present their position, too. Tobacco companies have a right. Payday lenders have a right. Pornographers have a right. Prolife and prochoice have a right. Pharma and hospitals and trial lawyers and unions and the AMA and the NRA all have a right to state their positions -- and more, the American people have a right to hear those positions, make their decisions, and vote accordingly. My husband and I are small business owners; small business owners are a special interest group (and one I wish were better represented and more respected in Washington, matter of fact). Of maturing age? You're part of a special interest group. A veteran? You're part of a special interest group. Single mothers, the disabled, the uninsured, minorities, retired, working poor, big corporations, unions, legal immigrants -- there are thousands of "special interest groups," and it's guaranteed that everyone reading this is a tacit member of at least one of them.

Corporations aren't evil. They also aren't good. They're businesses, which operate in their own perceived best interests. They're demonstrably efficient, overall, at raising capital, organizing labor, creating value for consumers, creating jobs, and giving benefit to their stockholders (owners/investors). Which doesn't mean they're always right or always beneficial, overall, to the society they serve -- but when that society doesn't like this or that thing, you just set some guidelines and regulations, and leave the rest of that good profit-making, value-producing, job-creating machine keep on chugging. No, Big Oil, you can't dump sludge in Farmer Percy's livestock pond. No, Big Banks, this time we're going to actually enforce SEC guidelines -- and you can't write mortgages to dead homeless people and then sell the mortgages and leave the taxpayer holding the bag when the corpse fails to make the mortgage payment. No, Big Pharma, you can't benefit from the free research done by the US government and funded universities and make X profit selling to Canada while denying US citizens the right to buy drugs from Canada.

Okay, which leads me to those lovely, unpredictable, traditionally right of center but still not-to-be-taken-for-granted independents.

All of a sudden, politicians have to be able to actually articulate their vision beyond "Communist/Fascist." The trigger words don't work for independents, despite their perpetual appeal to the purists of the respective parties. They have to be friendly. Approachable. Respectful of the actual people they're talking to, even if they disagree (hear that, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Frank? You can't dis your constituents for asking uncomfortable questions...) They're going to have to make their arguments sensible to the American people -- who will dismay you sometimes, and thrill you when you least expect it.

So what I'm seeing, crazy optimist that I am, is a voting population demanding some dadgum substance from the people they elect. Answers, not anger. Handshakes, not histrionics. I'm seeing a people more and more tired of the manufactured hysteria fed to us by this or that group, which leaders profit from our own fear/anger/irrationality. Mencken said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." And you know, that's true sometimes -- we get caught up in the people who profit from whipping us into a frothing frenzy. But eventually, we get tired of being agitated on command. We want our leaders to explain their positions to us, and make sense. We want them to be civil to us and to each other. I think the signs are there that the American people, given all the information, vote accordingly. If we get the politicians we deserve, then lately I'm seeing Americans as deserving of a much better caliber, and I'm trusting they'll get it.

Those who see Mr. Brown as a vindication of the hardline Republican tendency of late to want to purify the party of all but true believers will, I think, be disappointed. He's a Republican from a blue state. In South Carolina, he'd fail that strict litmus test -- he's pro-life personally (apparently), and backs parental notification and bans on partial birth abortion. But he considers Roe v. Wade established law, and says he has no plans to try to challenge it. His position on gay marriage pretty much mirrors Mr. Obama's, which fact he's pointed out -- he supports civil unions, but thinks it should be left to the states and considers the issue settled in Massachusetts.

Okay, so what makes me optimistic about Scott Brown? He's not a savior, and it's probable that some of his personal oddities will create uncomfortable moments. He's clearly a savvy political player. And when asked, he said he supports the president's positions on Afghanistan and on gay marriage, with a handful of other things. Oh, yeah. And not only did he have areas where he explicitly commends President Obama, but he ran a much cleaner and more upbeat campaign than his opponent (unscripted, unmanageable weirdness by supporters aside; Coakley had worse, and her campaign was dirtier.)

In other words, he's not a politician whose position is based on "against".

Which is where I bring in Air America. I never listened to it. There's not a huge market in South Carolina. But the articles I've read about it suggested that its programming tended not to be arguments supporting liberal position, but a litany of why Rush/Hannity were Bad. That's a policy of "against."

During the Bush years, the Democrats were the party of "against." The war is lost. Soldiers are terrorizing people. Cheney/Halliburton/oil companies/General Betray-us. Mostly, Bush is stupid and a puppet of Cheney. All little simple slogans designed to stop thoughtful discussion. Moveon.org was a master at that game.

Now the positions have switched, and the Republicans are the big No Monsters. The "you lie!" and Waterloo party. Granted, they're my party, so I'm a little more sympathetic -- you can't hand the opposition a zillion page bill at the 11th hour and expect them to vote in favor of it. Still, while there have been some sane voices speaking to the wind, opposition has more evidenced in "No," than, "What if we tried this?" Nobody gets a pass in my book, and behavior designed to appeal to the primal 5 year old in all of us doesn't thrill me. The Democrats knew just what they were setting up, a scenario where the Reps nearly had to unify in opposition; and the Republicans set it up so their intransigence was itself a real obstacle to any possible good-faith effort of any Democratic member to seek bipartisanship.

Okay, I'm wandering all over the place, so I'll move to the Supreme Court and the independent voter. The SCOTUS ruling, despite dire warnings (and headlines!) to the contrary, didn't lift the cap on corporate contributions to campaigns, but lifted the ban on corporate spending on advertising about a particular candidate. The doomsayers proclaim "The court has said money=speech!" But the court said nothing of the sort. Speech in the form of advertising is still speech, and costs money -- but it's still speech. And it occurs to me, with all the same thought-stopping sound bites like "big oil" and "corporate greed" and "big banks" looming as boogeymen ready to use their advertising dollars to purchase voter souls that -- well, they've got a right to present their position, too. Tobacco companies have a right. Payday lenders have a right. Pornographers have a right. Prolife and prochoice have a right. Pharma and hospitals and trial lawyers and unions and the AMA and the NRA all have a right to state their positions -- and more, the American people have a right to hear those positions, make their decisions, and vote accordingly. My husband and I are small business owners; small business owners are a special interest group (and one I wish were better represented and more respected in Washington, matter of fact). Of maturing age? You're part of a special interest group. A veteran? You're part of a special interest group. Single mothers, the disabled, the uninsured, minorities, retired, working poor, big corporations, unions, legal immigrants -- there are thousands of "special interest groups," and it's guaranteed that everyone reading this is a tacit member of at least one of them.

Corporations aren't evil. They also aren't good. They're businesses, which operate in their own perceived best interests. They're demonstrably efficient, overall, at raising capital, organizing labor, creating value for consumers, creating jobs, and giving benefit to their stockholders (owners/investors). Which doesn't mean they're always right or always beneficial, overall, to the society they serve -- but when that society doesn't like this or that thing, you just set some guidelines and regulations, and leave the rest of that good profit-making, value-producing, job-creating machine keep on chugging. No, Big Oil, you can't dump sludge in Farmer Percy's livestock pond. No, Big Banks, this time we're going to actually enforce SEC guidelines -- and you can't write mortgages to dead homeless people and then sell the mortgages and leave the taxpayer holding the bag when the corpse fails to make the mortgage payment. No, Big Pharma, you can't benefit from the free research done by the US government and funded universities and make X profit selling to Canada while denying US citizens the right to buy drugs from Canada.

Okay, which leads me to those lovely, unpredictable, traditionally right of center but still not-to-be-taken-for-granted independents.

All of a sudden, politicians have to be able to actually articulate their vision beyond "Communist/Fascist." The trigger words don't work for independents, despite their perpetual appeal to the purists of the respective parties. They have to be friendly. Approachable. Respectful of the actual people they're talking to, even if they disagree (hear that, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Frank? You can't dis your constituents for asking uncomfortable questions...) They're going to have to make their arguments sensible to the American people -- who will dismay you sometimes, and thrill you when you least expect it.

So what I'm seeing, crazy optimist that I am, is a voting population demanding some dadgum substance from the people they elect. Answers, not anger. Handshakes, not histrionics. I'm seeing a people more and more tired of the manufactured hysteria fed to us by this or that group, which leaders profit from our own fear/anger/irrationality. Mencken said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." And you know, that's true sometimes -- we get caught up in the people who profit from whipping us into a frothing frenzy. But eventually, we get tired of being agitated on command. We want our leaders to explain their positions to us, and make sense. We want them to be civil to us and to each other. I think the signs are there that the American people, given all the information, vote accordingly. If we get the politicians we deserve, then lately I'm seeing Americans as deserving of a much better caliber, and I'm trusting they'll get it.