Don't Call Me That -
A Liberal Call to Arms
Guy T. Sturino
October 02, 2005
You know, a person can wait a long time for what, in education, they call the “teachable moment”. I think I’ve been waiting now for about six years. Actually, I’ve been waiting since the Bush campaign began to denigrate John McCain. That campaign was the beginning of a new era in American politics, which is, ‘avoidance of the issue in the extreme’. It’s something I, along with anyone else who talks politics, encounters every day on every issue.
It has become, for some folks anyway, totally acceptable today to refuse to talk about issues and instead to loudly and strongly demean the person who holds a contrary view. At least it has become so for those who remain in resolute denial of reality and maintain an utter certainty that their party can do no wrong. Just as the preacher who yells “blasphemer” or “heathen” at anyone who doesn’t accept his personal savior, the political right has brought the fervor of religion and the practice of name calling into the political arena.
Before I go on it’s probably a good idea to let you know a little about me. I have a degree in Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, and had a career that included either managing or being a prominent part of international supplier quality departments for multi-million dollar corporations for a bit over 15 years. In those positions, I had the good fortune to visit and work in places from Beijing China to the borders of Eastern Europe. When I quit traveling I taught middle and high school for seven years until I retired. So now you know where I got the phrase ‘teachable moment’.
I can assure you that in my classrooms, such forms of verbal exchange as I described above were not allowed. I can also assure you that after graduation from high school my students, along with all the other graduates have been witness to some extremely poor examples of how to get along and how to discuss important issues. What makes this moment so teachable is that although I see the same kind of thing on the Senate floor almost every day, I never have it in writing to use as an example. I could share a few of the emails I get from friends and acquaintances, but you might think I just made them up. But this, if you wish, you can look up for yourself.
My ‘teachable moment’ came with the article Anti-War Creatures Mad at Media for Covering Rita Instead of Washington March, written by Edwin A. Sumcad, a professed academic. In the article, Mr. Sumcad resorted to calling those who protested in Washington “marching ‘oddballs’”, and then went on to say that “The media was not in the streets of Washington to listen, broadcast or write about the continuous crucifixion of President George W. Bush by ignorant leftwing Washington rallyists whose anti-Bush accusations about the war in Iraq border on lunacy. Crucifixion?
If a person chose to read on, they would encounter the phrases “ignorant cranks . . .idiotic accusation . . . odd march of political vice and villains . . . those “creatures” of the streets . . . we are no longer dealing with likable bipeds that talk and walk the planet with a human heart. Just “creatures”, “screwballs” or walking “oddballs”. . . ignorant anti-war campaigners . . .”, but enough, I tire of the exercise.
Now Mr. Sumcad has a long list of credentials. “Academic, other works -- has degrees in literature and jornalism, masters in development economics, and in civil law; journalist, practicing lawyer, Finance Attache, ASEAN specialist, retired diplomat, and former deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.” Much flashier than my own credentials. My point being, that it doesn’t seem to matter much what a person’s background is, if politics is internalized like religion the results are the same. I have heard remarks similar to those of Mr. Sumcad from people as socially elevated as the Honorable Orin Hatch, and from folks much closer to me, such as a journeyman dry wall hanger.
So what’s the lesson? What is there in all of this that anyone should care about?
It’s this – everyone who uses this type of point-avoidance argument is turning the strength of liberals against them. The essence of the liberal movement is civility. It is the only thing that allows so many people of differing opinions on so many issues to unite so strongly for what they consider the most important goals. It is the civility of earnest discussion about the things that matter, and the unwavering acceptance of the idea that everyone deserves to be heard, that keeps the liberal camp under one roof. And since we won’t descend to the level of name calling, it’s high time we began to at least point out the lack of civility in those who do, and to do it loud and clear.
Name calling, like profanity, is the strong expression of a weak mind, no matter how educated or uneducated the user. Unquestioning political apostles who block their ears and begin to shout in order to avoid listening to anything not written in the party platform need to be avoided like the plague. The next time someone even begins to avoid the legitimate discussion of differing points of view by demeaning the character of the speaker, let them know that they are irrelevant to any educated discussion. And do it where their friends can hear.
But no name calling.
It has become, for some folks anyway, totally acceptable today to refuse to talk about issues and instead to loudly and strongly demean the person who holds a contrary view. At least it has become so for those who remain in resolute denial of reality and maintain an utter certainty that their party can do no wrong. Just as the preacher who yells “blasphemer” or “heathen” at anyone who doesn’t accept his personal savior, the political right has brought the fervor of religion and the practice of name calling into the political arena.
Before I go on it’s probably a good idea to let you know a little about me. I have a degree in Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, and had a career that included either managing or being a prominent part of international supplier quality departments for multi-million dollar corporations for a bit over 15 years. In those positions, I had the good fortune to visit and work in places from Beijing China to the borders of Eastern Europe. When I quit traveling I taught middle and high school for seven years until I retired. So now you know where I got the phrase ‘teachable moment’.
I can assure you that in my classrooms, such forms of verbal exchange as I described above were not allowed. I can also assure you that after graduation from high school my students, along with all the other graduates have been witness to some extremely poor examples of how to get along and how to discuss important issues. What makes this moment so teachable is that although I see the same kind of thing on the Senate floor almost every day, I never have it in writing to use as an example. I could share a few of the emails I get from friends and acquaintances, but you might think I just made them up. But this, if you wish, you can look up for yourself.
My ‘teachable moment’ came with the article Anti-War Creatures Mad at Media for Covering Rita Instead of Washington March, written by Edwin A. Sumcad, a professed academic. In the article, Mr. Sumcad resorted to calling those who protested in Washington “marching ‘oddballs’”, and then went on to say that “The media was not in the streets of Washington to listen, broadcast or write about the continuous crucifixion of President George W. Bush by ignorant leftwing Washington rallyists whose anti-Bush accusations about the war in Iraq border on lunacy. Crucifixion?
If a person chose to read on, they would encounter the phrases “ignorant cranks . . .idiotic accusation . . . odd march of political vice and villains . . . those “creatures” of the streets . . . we are no longer dealing with likable bipeds that talk and walk the planet with a human heart. Just “creatures”, “screwballs” or walking “oddballs”. . . ignorant anti-war campaigners . . .”, but enough, I tire of the exercise.
Now Mr. Sumcad has a long list of credentials. “Academic, other works -- has degrees in literature and jornalism, masters in development economics, and in civil law; journalist, practicing lawyer, Finance Attache, ASEAN specialist, retired diplomat, and former deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.” Much flashier than my own credentials. My point being, that it doesn’t seem to matter much what a person’s background is, if politics is internalized like religion the results are the same. I have heard remarks similar to those of Mr. Sumcad from people as socially elevated as the Honorable Orin Hatch, and from folks much closer to me, such as a journeyman dry wall hanger.
So what’s the lesson? What is there in all of this that anyone should care about?
It’s this – everyone who uses this type of point-avoidance argument is turning the strength of liberals against them. The essence of the liberal movement is civility. It is the only thing that allows so many people of differing opinions on so many issues to unite so strongly for what they consider the most important goals. It is the civility of earnest discussion about the things that matter, and the unwavering acceptance of the idea that everyone deserves to be heard, that keeps the liberal camp under one roof. And since we won’t descend to the level of name calling, it’s high time we began to at least point out the lack of civility in those who do, and to do it loud and clear.
Name calling, like profanity, is the strong expression of a weak mind, no matter how educated or uneducated the user. Unquestioning political apostles who block their ears and begin to shout in order to avoid listening to anything not written in the party platform need to be avoided like the plague. The next time someone even begins to avoid the legitimate discussion of differing points of view by demeaning the character of the speaker, let them know that they are irrelevant to any educated discussion. And do it where their friends can hear.
But no name calling.
Print
Email
