We wish we could have a civil dialogue with our fellow Americans on the issue. That would go a long way to unite our divided nation. However, a review of America’s history reveals civil discourse has been the exception rather than the rule. Throughout that history Americans have argued most uncivilly with each other, like one great dysfunctional family, having one very long episode of the family Thanksgiving dinner from hell.
Divisive language is not new to the 21st century. We baby boomers recall all too well the furor of the 1960s and ‘70s. The 1950s were rife with hatred over race and global issues, resulting in McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Jim Crow laws.
In her book, “Those Angry Days,” Lynne Olson reprises the reality of a bitterly divided nation’s struggle between isolationists and interventionists before America’s entry into World War II. She notes these were uncivil arguments not between Democrats and Republicans, but rather, internecine warfare between members within each political party. It was so ugly that a punch was thrown in the House of Representatives, which led the House Doorman to pronounce it “the best thrown punch thrown by a member of Congress in fifty years.” Such a statement, of course, implies it was not the only one thrown in the halls of Congress in fifty years.
As baldly partisan as it is, at least congressional civility has since progressed away from fisticuffs.
The first two decades of the 20th century were only slightly less rancorous. The period of Reconstruction was ugly to say the least.
There is no point reminding anyone of the lack of civil discourse that led to the War Between the States. The dialogue was so bitterly divisive and hateful that it took a civil war to end slavery and the argument concerning a state’s right to secede from the Union. We naturally assume that our dialogue will not get so ugly that armed conflict will follow, but there is no guarantee it can’t happen again. The closest we came to a period of civil discourse was when our Founding Fathers created this great experiment of representative democracy. Truth be told, their national dialogue often fell far short of civility. What was so different between the Founders and today’s elected officials, is that the Founders were willing to put aside vast differences for the sake of a common goal; to mend fences and compromise for the greater good. As with the issue of slavery, they didn’t always get it right, but they managed to create something greater out of their efforts.
Many believe it is meaningless to voice a political opinion because most Americans are entrenched in our seemingly immovable, closed minds. But — and this is vitally important to remember — American history proves that over time we change our minds. We have often done so with great reluctance and it has usually taken momentous events, but opinions have changed nearly 180 degrees over time. That pliability of the human mind explains how we became elevated from slavery and the elitism of Hamiltonian philosophy; it is why the breadth and strength of racism and anti-Semitism has been greatly diminished by the collective mind of this country. Political discussions on the issues that divide us will most likely be resolved with time. Even if the discussions are overly loud and partisan, they are a part of democracy in action. The immigration issue, reproductive rights, wage inequality and the environment are other issues that require a thoughtful American dialog. If we simply take the time to actually hear the other side’s point of view, we can civilize our national discourse.
Michael Adkins formerly was chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party. Send comments to [email protected].
