Yesterday on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer closed his telecast as he always does, with a short commentary.
Transcript:
Finally today, that was not a state of the union speech we heard the other night. But, it had all the trappings. And when that congressman hollered "you lie" at the President, we did get a snapshot of the nation's state and it was not a pretty picture.The country is in an angry mood, people are frustrated, tempers are short, congressmen being shouted down at town hall meetings where constituents sometimes show up with guns, and at rallies like the one yesterday in Washington where people carried signs such as "bury health care with Kennedy."The irony of a congressman trying to heckle a President in the midst of a speech, it was among other things about the need for civility, is just one ugly sign of the mindless meanness that has settled over our politics.How different it was in the aftermath of a far more difficult time, those days after 9/11 whose anniversary we marked on Friday. I remember watching then not far from where that congressman hurled his insult, as Senate Republican leader Trent Lott put his hand on the shoulder of his Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle, to announce the Senate had passed a forty-billion-dollar emergency appropriations bill and passed it unanimously.That day the country came together as it had not done since World War II and it made us proud to know what we could do when we had to. It brought out our best.Put aside for the moment who is right and who is wrong in the current debate and ask yourself --can anyone really be proud of the side of America this argument is bringing out?
Schieffer's commentary came up on 60 Minutes later that night:
KROFT: I was talking to my CBS colleague, Bob Schieffer this morning. And we were talking about 9/11 and he was talking about the sense of unity he felt in the country on that day, and was comparing that to the situation we have now. When you were, I mean, you were heckled. Not at a town meeting. Not on the campaign trail, but in the joint session of Congress.OBAMA: Actually, my town meetings, people were extraordinarily courteous. (LAUGHTER) Yeah.KROFT: Were you surprised?Obama: Well, Congressman Wilson, shouting out during my joint sessions speech was a surprise not just to me, but I think to a lot of his Republican colleagues. You know, said that it wasn't appropriate. He apologized afterwards, which I appreciated. I've said so.Truth of the matter is that there has been I think a coarsening of our political dialogue. That I've been running against since I got into politics.KROFT: Do you think that Congressman Wilson should be rebuked? There was talk about that today, and now he's claiming that he is a victim. That he's being attacked.OBAMA: (LAUGHS) But see, this is part of what happens. I mean, it becomes a big circus instead of us focusing on health care.KROFT: I think Bob Schieffer's point was that, I think he thought that…in some ways, this debate has brought out the worst in us.OBAMA: Well…KROFT: Not the best.OBAMA: …well, I think you've got a convergence of things. Look, worst recession since the Great Depression. People feeling anxious. I think we're debating something that has always been a source of controversy, and that's not just health care, but also the structure, and the size, and the role of government. That's something that basically defines the left and the right in this country. And so, extremes on both sides get very agitated about that issue.I will also say that in the era of 24-hour cable news cycles that the loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention. And so, one of the things I'm trying to figure out is, how can we make sure that civility is interesting. And, you know, hopefully, I will be a good model for the fact that, you know, you don't have to yell and holler to make your point, and to be passionate about your position.KROFT: So, your goal to bring civility back to Washington is still a work in progress?OBAMA: It's still a work in progress. No doubt about it.
Will that work be completed?
This incivility seems to have become a game of "Can You Top This?" A decade ago, during the Clinton-Lewinsky drama, and even before that during the Clinton administration, we heard a constant theme and variation about a country bitterly divided. "It didn't always used to be like this," you'd hear. And then it was, "It's getting worse" followed by "Can it ever get better?" Suddenly, the country was assigned colors, red and blue. The media was liberal; Fox was a conservative shill. Some said their freedoms were being taken from them, some talked about secession, others about revolution, gun sales rose.
Taking sides may always have been a pasttime, but it becamse easier to do right as the internet and cable television began to dominate our culture, right around the same time the rancorous debate between the two sides began to worsen. It was sort of like sports fans, and of course, whichever team you rooted for, the other team sucked. And of course, you only sit on your side of the field.
In the information age, it's easy for you to surround yourself with people like yourself. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past generation, it's that we are really into self-validation.
We don't only want radio programs and websites from members of our team --we want to live around people like ourselves. Having moved from a manufacturing era to an information age, workers are no longer tied down to a mine, a port or a factory. They have more opportunities to shop for a place to live, and they have. And they tend to cluster in places where people share their cultural aesthetic and, as it turns out, political values. So every place becomes more like itself, and the cultural divides between places become stark. The information age was supposed to make distance dead, but because of this migratory clustering, geography becomes more important. The political result: Republican places become more Republican and Democratic places become more Democratic.
Between 1948 and 1976, most counties in the U-S became more closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. In 1976, Gerald Ford, a Republican, could win most of New England and the entire Pacific Coast, and he almost won New York.
We've been segregating politically ever since. As Bill Bishop of the Austin American-Statesman has found, the number of counties where one party or another has a landslide majority has doubled over the past quarter century. Whole regions that once were mixed are now solidly Democratic or Republican. Nearly three-quarters of us, according to Bishop, live in counties that are becoming less competitive, and many of us find ourselves living in places that are overwhelmingly liberal or overwhelmingly conservative.
When we find ourselves in such communities, our views shift even further in the dominant direction. You get this self-reinforcement cycle going, which social scientists call "group polarization."
This is not good for democracy.
People lose touch with others in opposing, now distant, camps. And millions of kids are raised in what amount to political ghettos.
The pattern has accelerated as the rancor has escalated. And now here we are today. Look at us.
Back to Schieffer's question: Put aside for the moment who is right and who is wrong in the current debate and ask yourself --can anyone really be proud of the side of America this argument is bringing out?
I think a lot of us simply can't put aside who is right and who is wrong.
Obama says he has a goal to bring civility back to Washington.
"It's still a work in progress," he says. "No doubt about it."
Despite his best effort, I think he's going to fail. And that won't be his fault; it'll be ours.
I think we're spoiled. We're not interested in getting along. We've turned politics into a zero-sum game. No solution will satisfy everyone, and if it can't satisfy everyone, it can't satisfy anyone. Exactly what do you want? Since the majority of the current rancor is coming from the conservatives, can you who are conservatives answer a question? Don't tell me what's wrong; tell me what would make it right.
It should go without saying that I'm asking the grown-ups in the room, not those of you who impulsively reach for the childish insult, or spelling twists like Libtard. That doesn't answer the question (although it will certainly say something about you).
Let's put it this way: Suppose we corner off a section of the nation, say from Texas across the Southeast to Florida. Okay 9/12-ers, followers of Glenn Beck, Obama-haters, conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, whatever you call yourselves… you now have a place to call home. South Carolilna Sen. Jim DeMint can be your president. You can have the society you want. What would it be like? I'm not interested in industry and the types of commerce that would generate a GDP. I'm just interested in the kind of place you'd like to live --your ideal.
Describe your government, your laws, your social values like faith, sexuality, infidelity, sex education, birth control and abortion. What would your education system be like? Would you have school prayer? Would you teach creationism in class?
What about immigration? How would you deal with illegals crossing into Texas? Would English become official language?
What about crime? Would you have the death penalty and how would you deal with the Constitutional rights of due process and self-incrimination?
Would everyone and anyone be allowed to own and/or carry a gun? Would you feel the need to own one now that you have a government you no longer fear? Would you legalize marijuana?
What would your nation's health care system be? Everyone pays their own way? Would there be a Social Security system or would retirees be expected to prepare on their own and if they don't, too bad? What about entitlement programs for the poor? How would you handle the poor who have no job skills?
What about race? Would people of color get a leg up through Affirmative Action? How would you deal with racial profiling? If South Carolina wanted to raise the Confederate Stars and Bars over its capitol building (or outside Joe Wilson's house), would that be okay? Would the Stars and Bars become your new flag?
You get the idea. Another way to ask: If you don't trust your government today, describe the kind of government you would want that you could actually trust.
If you hate the direction the country is going, if you think it's going downhill, what is your ideal society to live in?
Or can we, a diverse, pluralistic society, ever find enough compromise to return to an era of civility?
Are you proud of the side of America this argument is bringing out?
Is this anyone you know?
Is this really how you see it?
Comments
A return to the Constitutional Republic we had many years ago.
Nothing more, nothing less.
REMOVE the CORRUPT pols in congress.
RE-ELECT NO INCUMBENTS in 2010 and 2012.
REFORM HEALTH CARE NOW!!!! Ask the Party of No--the poster children for inbreeding-- are you with the rest of the US or are you against US? Up or down, yes or no. Shoot the No's!
I do not believe that I would wish to live in a nation ruled strictly by conservative principles. It would look way too much like a Iran, with religion ruling, guns everywhere, criminal laws with no mercy, wide divide between the haves and have nots,and freedom of speech only if you watch what you say. Nope, I don't want that.
I would simply like to see our country get back to following our Constitution. No more trying to get around it or twist it to create new programs. No more avoiding it! 3 branches of government, no more extentions of the Fed. Let the states take care of their part!
I would like no more Bush or Obama bailouts for anyone! No more czars! No more Patriot Act! I want our government to leave the people and our earnings alone so that we can take care of our selves and do that which we feel is best for our selves!
Let the States take care of programs, let the fed take care of the military and let us all take care of and follow our United States Constitution!
I am not looking for restrictions on abortion, or birth control, or sexuality or anything. THe majority of issues you question (social securtity, drugs, school teachings, adn so on) I would simply leave to the states so long as they do not trample on the Constitution. Yes the 2nd Amendment would still be very important!
These things, healthcare and energy caps these too should be state issues. I don't think a flag other than an American flag should fly over any federal building, but if a state wishes to do different, well don't allow that state federal dollars, but that's not a big issue in my eyes.
I think we need a faster track for immigrants to become legal, perhaps set up posts like modern day Ellis Islands that can legalize people in mounths, weeks and days instead of years.
You bring up race... I don't understand, let every man be created equal and do their best! Let's not get in eachothers way, no one should care about skin color, we are only creating more problems.
My faith and my social values should have no baring on law, no ones should. We need only follow the Constitution and work with in our states!
Would I trust a government if it got back on track and stuck strictly to the Constitution. I would be pleased with it's direction, but No, I will not TRUST any government.
I guess WWGBD wants slaves and to deny women the right to vote. Ahhh, the good ol' days.
Does "WWGBD" stand for "What Would George Bush Do?" Hilarious, considering how he broke the constitution. Remember how POed second amendment advocates and republicans were about his abuse of the constitution? Me neither, which is why their protests mean NOTHING to me now.
And lynch all named katie since they are racists!
katie, remove your head from you big ass and get with it. Bush is nt the president. Obamunism will ruin America.
People like you ruin America.
Well, I would simply want to live in a society without violence. No, personally I am an anarchist, so again, IDEALLY people would not use violence simply because they recognize it as a moral evil. As far as sex, culture, religion, whatever, that's up to each individual person to figure out for themselves.
The Patriot Party says: "I would simply like to see our country get back to following our Constitution..."
Does that mean wiping out 200 years of court rulings, starting with Marbury? The Constitution was written to be an elastic document; the Framers knew it. Challenges since its inception have been made and courts have ruled on it, changing much of the American fabric. Would you toss those rulings out? Are you saying you want what is essentially a Strict Constuctionist society? How strict are you willing to make that?
I meant, "Now" not "no"
In the previous column I mention that some people can easily be distracted and fall into a trap. Some of the commenters here have already proven that. I wish we lived in a country that knew how to ignore those kinds of people because they certainly don't bring anything constructive to the table.
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Should-Joe-Wilson-apologize-again-or-should-we-move-on
Bruce, I'm not talking about throwing out court decisions. I'm talking about Congress following the Constitution, and yes, strictly!
While I am still in studies of the document, I can find no mention from a founder saying that our Constitution is "elastic." I have never found mention of living and breating documents. I only know that our republic has law. That law is the Constitution. If we are not going to live by that law, we are a lawless society.
What kind of country do anti-western culture leftist want?
Patriot says: "Bruce, I'm not talking about throwing out court decisions. I'm talking about Congress following the Constitution, and yes, strictly! ...I can find no mention from a founder saying that our Constitution is 'elastic.' I have never found mention of living and breating documents... our republic has law. That law is the Constitution. If we are not going to live by that law, we are a lawless society."
But, law is determined by the court's interpretation of that document, and while no Framer ever used the world elastic, they didn't use the word strict, either. It was written with latitude in mind. Jefferson, for instance, wanted to abolish slavery but some of the southern colonies wouldn't go along and they needed all 13 colonies to be signatores. But Jefferson knew the language of our framing documents would eventually result in the emancipation that occurred nearly 80 years later. Read Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen. GREAT book.
Best...
Je$$e $harpton says: "What kind of country do anti-western culture leftist want?"
Different question but better to have been asked when THEY were the ones complaining. Liberals aren't the ones saying "I want my country back." So when conservatives say that, as they are now, my question is, exactly what country is that? Let's stick to the question at hand. If the tables become turned, as they surely will in our pendulum-like society, then we can ask liberals what the heck they want. Fair enough?
But, law is determined by the court's interpretation of that document, and while no Framer ever used the world elastic, they didn't use the word strict, either. It was written with latitude in mind. Jefferson, for instance, wanted to abolish slavery but some of the southern colonies wouldn't go along and they needed all 13 colonies to be signatores. But Jefferson knew the language of our framing documents would eventually result in the emancipation that occurred nearly 80 years later. Read Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen. GREAT book.
I will check out the book.
You site one of the reasons we have the 10th Amendment. And it is a needed amendment as we need to allow for government growth and expanstion. But we can't allow for a great federal power! It will burn us in the end.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and the government, so let us tie down the second with the chains of the Constitution so that it does not become the legalized version of th
Je$$e $harpton says: "What kind of country do anti-western culture leftist want?"
Different question but better to have been asked when THEY were the ones complaining. Liberals aren't the ones saying "I want my country back." So when conservatives say that, as they are now, my question is, exactly what country is that? Let's stick to the question at hand. If the tables become turned, as they surely will in our pendulum-like society, then we can ask liberals what the heck they want. Fair enough?
Now Bruce, this brings up an interesting point. See what many have to realize is that it is more than conservatives and liberals we are dealing with. The conservatives are just as much at fault as the liberals (if not more) for damage done to our system. What people need to see is that many (not all) but many of these marchers and 9/12ers know it. They know both political parties are broken and out for power grabs. It is time for WE THE PEOPLE to come together and fix what is broken befor
Patriot: "It is time for WE THE PEOPLE to come together and fix what is broken before..."
But I think that's a bit simplistic, too (just like the conservative and liberal labels). I went through over a thousand photos of the D-C rally and I didn't see a single indication that anyone in the crowd was liberal. Mostly conservative signs and banners, and even some racially motivated ones. Is this a different band of people masquerading as patriots because the people in the above video are terribly misinformed. Who are they?
Bruce Said:"But I think that's a bit simplistic, too (just like the conservative and liberal labels). I went through over a thousand photos of the D-C rally and I didn't see a single indication that anyone in the crowd was liberal. Mostly conservative signs and banners, and even some racially motivated ones. Is this a different band of people masquerading as patriots because the people in the above video are terribly misinformed. Who are they?"
I don't know what marks one as liberal or conservative. I know many dems that do and don't support the policies of Obama. I know many reps that do and don't support the policies of Bush. Radicals exist in every group. I don't think they were screening. Should they? I only know that rally I was at (not the DC rally) I saw many signs that said "Republicans Suck Too!" I can't speak for every individual in the masses, only about those whom I have spoken with will I speak about.
The USA is not a democracy, as liberals like to say, but founded as a constitutional republic. We want a return to this type of government that our founding fathers fought for, and died for, and created on our behalf. A government that has sound money backed by gold. We need to do away with the Federal Reserve, and the IRS. The founding fathers never intended that we would ever be taxed on our labor. Therefore, the IRS needs to go away along with the FED. The IRS only collects money to pay interest on the money the FED created out of thin air. Nothing more!!!
While were at it we need to roll back all unconstitutional laws created by our government. Our Constitution does not grant authority to the government for any of the things the government is trying to do. No authority to regulate health care, no authority to tax us on CO2 (a plant food), no authority to control education, etc. etc. What we have is tyrannical leaders at their best!
Liberals hate the constitution, freedom, lib
Return to what our founding fathers designed - limited federal government, free enterprise, personal responsibility, fidelity to the Constitution. And we want the corruption and special interest control of Washington gone - on both sides of the isle.
Anti-Liberal: 4) As for the gold standard, a return to that is fraught with all sorts of problems. No government uses it. Governments faced with the need to fund expensive endeavors --like war-- can andh have been severely hampered by limited sources of tax revenue and suspended convertibility of currency into gold. In fact it's been suspended on occasion just to pay the bills. Some would argue that the great prosperity we've seen in the United States is largely due to the credit economy we have creatd for ourselves. It's the failure to manage that credit that gets us in trouble and it's not just the government that has a credit problem. Far too many of us carry our credit card bills over from month to month, which is the worst way to pay --so it ain't just us. Instead of a gold standard, maybe you should demand better money management. That would make more sense.
3) "While were at it we need to roll back all unconstitutional laws created by our government."
Who decides that, you? Many learned men and women have adjudicated these matters over the course of two centuries like the point you made about liberals, it's overly simplistic. Sounds good when you say it fast, but if you're talking about rolling back landmark Supreme Court rulings, you may find yourself in a country of one. And I'm not sure you can take the Constitution so literally that you can use it as a legitimate argument for what can't be done by the government. If the legislature passes a bill that becomes law, you can challenge its constitutionality in court. I've no problem with that, but that's how things are done. Legislature makes law; courts assess their legality.
2) I'd dump the IRS and the Dept of Education, for starters. Schools at the local level and tax in accordance to services demanded by the citizenry; just make an automatic withdrawal from your paycheck each week --whatever percentage is deemed fair-- and then never worry about it again. No April 15th nonsense. That might be one way to simplify our taxes and yes, that idea needs some work, but you get my point.
1) Anti Liberal, first, the brash generalizations about liberals are just plain silly. To say liberals hate the constitution is just as ignorant as liberals who said conservatives hate the Constitution, which the did during the Bush Administration. All sorts of Americans are misinformed about civics. Look at the so-called conservatives in the above video --clueless, and you could find an equal number of liberals, I'm sure, who are equally misguided. Ignorance knows no party, but it always seems to be the most partisan among us who try to ascribe a political identity to it. Why, to feel better about your own ideology? Come off it and let's raise the level of dialogue here. Labeling and fingerpointing is for kids.
As a person on the right/libertarian who agrees with much of the rancor here is what I want. I want to be left alone. I want the freedom to make my own economic choices. I want the freedom to fail, the freedom to not have any healthcare insurance, the freedom to preach whatever I believe about evolution/homosexuality etc... I want self determination without the constant drone of big brother threats above. I want more local control and local government without federal interference. I want respect from the leftists that this is my country too and I have just as much right to live here as I see fit. I dont want somebody in california, NY, Dallas telling me how to live my life. I want a president that doesnt constantly demonize who I am and what I believe like I am some sort of throwback to the 18th century. Why cant we celebrate our differences and live and let live in this country anymore. I dont care what liberals do to themselves, I just want my freedom as I define it. There!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!