On the Loss of Amicable Political Discourse
by John Aquino on 09/11/12
As we edge toward the climax of this political season in 2012, it makes me realize how much I miss having animated, civil, amicable, and reasonable political discussions with friends and family.
I used to have them, and it wasn't so long ago.
As a lawyer, I was trained to be able to argue the other side's case in order to know where they were coming from, to find their weaknesses, and anticipate their strategy. As a journalist/interviewer, I have learned to put myself in the position of the person I am interviewing in order to frame a question and to know them better. In both cases, I hope I can do it with understanding, even when, or shall we shall especially when, I disagree with the person, because contempt is highly visible, is never attractive, and can never be productive.
I was brought up as a (John) Kennedy Democrat, but as I grew older found myself confronted with a string of Democrats that I could never vote for as president--McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis. I adopted the philosophy that I would vote for the person and not the party. But, as I grew older, I admittedly became a little more conservative.
Still, up until the end of the 1980s, I loved talking politics with people and doing so in a friendly manner. I was reading Carol Blue's forward to her late husband Christopher Hitchens' posthumous book Mortality in which she remembered eight-hour dinner parties that usually ended with his toast "How good it is to be us!" To me, that smacks a bit of elitism. But then I used to have friendly political discussions with strangers in bars and at bus stops. So I recognize the feeling, "How good it is to be us, in this country, where we can discuss things and disagree--reasonably."
That all seemed to change in the late 1980s. I remember seeing the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) on a political talk show shortly before he was diagnosed with brain cancer and so a year before he died in 2009. The interviewer quoted him as saying during the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings of Thurgood Marshall in 1962 that a nominee's personal ideology was irrelevant--in contrast with the present approach. "It changed with Bork," Kennedy said simply, referring to the 1987 Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork, whom Kennedy had attacked for his ideology, which coined the term "borking" meaning "to criticize a person's reputation in an extreme way."
Of course, you can argue that it didn't start with Bork, it started with President Nixon and Watergate in the early 1970s when Americans became less trustful of government. And there's a book titled, "It Didn't Start with Watergate."
During the Clinton impeachment period, family discussions got so heated at a Christmas Eve dinner that my wife, mother-in-law and I had spent weeks preparing, that several guest left early--really early. I attended luncheons with attorneys and was surprised to hear them airily dismiss the significance of civil perjury regarding Clinton. "But as lawyers don't we have to insist that the oath to tell the whole truth be honored?" I would ask. "Isn't that important to us?" But it turns out it wasn't, and they usually changed tables.
Before Bork, I used to have delightful political conversations with a good friend of mine. But then it seemed to gradually change as we entered the 21st century. We were having lunch, and she started to gleefully discuss the prospect of Rep. Tom Delay (R-Texas) going to prison for money laundering. I have no sympathy for what he is accused of having done, and he was later convicted in 2011. But she started to go off on how happy she would be when he was behind bars.
"I can't wait for him to go to the slammer and become the boy toy of a six-foot convict named Maurice."
I looked at her with my mouth open. "You realize that what you are wishing on him is homosexual rape. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy."
She paused for just a second, just a second as her eyes flickered and she considered what I had said. But then she went on, "That would make sense after the way he raped the rights of his constituents in Texas." There was no shaking her.
Of course, we have seen that not just liberals can be extreme in their political views, as was demonstrated by the conservative "Tea Party."
Perhaps our views have become extreme in reaction to the extreme behavior of some of our politcians--Nixon, Clinton.
Not to dwell on Clinton, but during the impeachment trial, I was having dinner with a very sweet and wonderful older lady. She had been brought up in the early days of the previous century, was a widow, had been married to one man, and had an extremely inquisitive mind.
All of a sudden she asked me, "Can you explain oral sex to me?"
"What!" I said, having done a vaudeville spit-take with my water glass.
"I was watching the tape of Clinton's [civil trial] testimony, and I just don't know what it is." She moved to her chair back to show her legs. "Now, how does it work? If he was sitting down behind his desk at the White House, where would Monica Lewinsky be?"
After dinner, having avoided demonstrating oral sex to this wonderful lady, I walked outside and thought for just a second of stepping in front of a bus, lamenting the loss of reasonable political discourse and the loss of innocence.
I didn't, of course, and here we are.
Copyright 2012 by John T. Aquino
