CIVIL DISAGREEMENT

Listen, I don’t want to chastise any one for poor behavior but lately there have been a series of signs pointing to a breakdown in civilized discourse in our world. There was, for example, Representative Joe Wilson, a Republican of South Carolina, who disrupted President Obama’s address to congress by shouting “You lie.” In another instance of political rage, Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat of Michigan, was interrupted in a speech on health care reform when a voice from the Republican side shouted “Baby Killer.” It was unclear whether the intent of the charge was that the bill, which endorsed government subsidized abortion, was a baby killer or Stupak himself, in supporting the bill, was a baby killer, but it made no difference—the shouted charge was deeply jarring and upsetting. And finally, to prove that uncivilized behavior is not the domain of any one political party, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, had a bullet shatter the window of a regional office, and has been the object of such virulent anti-semitic attacks, he is loathe to even reveal their specific content for feat of copycat racists spreading the hate even more than it already is.

I’m preaching to the choir when I say that such verbal abuses and acts of violence are totally out of bounds in a democracy, and I suspect that the good majority of us are as outraged as any decent citizen would be in learning of these offenses. But perhaps the time has come to examine ourselves--Have we contributed, even if only inadvertently, to a climate of intolerance and enmity in the country?

One of the sadder facts of political discourse these days is the extent to which honest and vigorous debate is curtailed by people whose political positions are overshadowed by their passion. Debate should never be about who can shout the loudest, who can humiliate most effectively, or whose sarcasm is sharpest. These are all ways we focus on anything but the issue at hand. It is people who lack an understanding of a problem who will most likely resort to destroying their opponent rather than debating the issue. Who wants to debate under those conditions? And when true debate is suppressed, we all lose, for it is within the give and take of political argument that we can actually better understand our differences and thus the issues at stake.

I don’t personally know anyone who has ever insulted the president of the United States or put a bullet through a congressman’s window, but I know plenty of people who become so enraged in a political debate that their manner moves others to bring discussion to a close. That’s a problem. A democracy that can’t discuss an issue civilly is an impoverished democracy and cannot thrive for any length of time.

Most of the Talmud is a weaving of mahlokot—debates. Sometimes those debates got sharp, but mostly they were witty and clever and conducted in an atmosphere leshem shamayim, that is, for the sake of heaven or to clarify what exactly heaven wants of us. I’ll tell you this—heaven doesn’t expect us to agree with each other, but heaven expects that when we disagree, we disagree respectfully and civilly. Let’s talk about this more to our family, friends and neighbors and let everyone know that our threshold for tolerating uncivil behavior has just dropped significantly.