UNCIVIL DISCOURSE IN CIVIL SOCIETY: THE NOVEMBER 2010 ELECTION

Good words for good purposes have been chased from the political marketplace. A personal example: this summer, in a public situation, a friend asked me for the address of the Chicago Network for Justice and Peace with which I work. When I said the words ‘justice and peace,’ a total stranger within ear shot shouted out ‘why are you against Israel.’ I asked some friends to help me understand how it was that the words ‘justice and peace’ could provoke such a strong, negative feeling when, for me, these words express a basic principle of Catholic social thinking, which has inspired Catholics and non-Catholics alike to work for justice in civil society for more than a 150 years. My friends informed me that many people hear the words ‘justice and peace’ as ‘code’ for supporting socialism, or Palestinian rights, or taking nuclear weapons from Israel. This incident bewildered me and caused me to remember the politics of the 1950’s when to be in favor of, let alone to be working for, ‘peace’ meant you were a communist, a communist sympathizer, or a communist dupe. (Sometimes it only meant that you were a hopelessly naïve intellectual ‘egg-head’ a la Adlai Stevenson.)

Reflecting on the debasement of the words ‘justice and peace’ prompted me to consider other words that caused people to shout down the speaker. Here’s a partial listing of what came immediately to mind: immigration; Islam; race; abortion; affirmative action; the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on Terror; separation of church and state; prayer in public schools; the Catholic church; gay marriage; women priests; NAFTA; global warming; et alia. What I realized in making this list is that I myself had been silenced: I no longer discussed these issues in public situations.

Two examples of the abuse of the word ‘information’: Last summer a distinguished physician at one of the world’s finest medical centers sent out an email to his friends and patients declaring that the proposed health care reform bill would require ‘death panels’ for aging Medicare recipients. Intelligent people were misled by this email because they respected the source and because the email pretended to be providing essential information, not lobbying for a partisan position. The quotations cited by this physician were taken totally out of their contexts from a variety of disparate bills none of which had been moved past committee stage. Their original contexts pertained to the right of Medicare participants to have access to second opinions and forms of health care therapy other than those recommended by the assigned physician. The other example: an allegedly non-partisan, information session I attended last year on the health care reform bill was in reality a political pep rally in favor of ‘the single payer’ system. In both of these cases, the word ‘information’ was seriously misused.

Debate used to mean the adversarial process of coming to the best opinion. Today debates seem to be opportunities for besting your opponent. They are about winning. Winning at any cost. The search in these debates is not for the truth but, as in a deadly fencing duel, for the opening that secures the deadly hit that destroys the opponent.

Public speaking or rhetoric used to mean the power to persuade through the artful construction of arguments based on accurate information. Today, it seems that political speech has only one purpose: to enflame existing prejudice to uncritical action.

The health of our civilization depends upon the health of our democracy. The health of our democracy depends upon the quality of our political discourse.

Our literacy as citizens is the heart of our civil society. Uncivil discourse destroys the essence of politics as the art of pursuing the common good.

We live in a society which confuses ‘personality’ with ‘character,’ ‘self-righteous rage’ with ‘passion.’ True passion listens patiently. True passion chooses words carefully, uses them justly, hopes to open minds and hearts, and to persuade all, including itself, to know and do the good.

The next time you hear a word or phrase that sets you off, please stop and ask yourself ‘Why?’ and then please ask the other person to explain what the words mean to him or her. It’s called conversation. In politics, it’s called civil discourse.

Nick Patricca Chicago 23 September 2010