On the EDge: Dirty, rotten scoundrels are ruining political discourse

February 20, 2017 Utah Channel 3

OPINION – There was a time when I enjoyed a good, vigorous political discussion.

The more passionate the better.

Not now.

Not these days.

No way.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to get down and dirty in the name-calling and nastiness with the dirty, rotten scoundrels who are unleashing all kinds of ugliness these days when it comes to our current political situation.

I’ve heard and read some things lately that would make a sailor blush.

Look, we’ve got some serious issues we’re facing right now. The chasm between left and right has never been deeper. And, we need to fix things. A lot of things.

But it won’t happen if we spend more time trying to slam each other. The playground taunts, partisan slurs and general disregard for each other will do nothing to repair the damage.

There is a difference between a well-crafted bon mot and the vile, vitriolic invective that has slipped into our everyday discourse.

That doesn’t mean we should back down our personal beliefs.

We should, now more than ever, stand tall behind what we believe. In fact, for the good of the nation, we should be required to step from the shadows and declare ourselves, but with a sense of decency rather than anger.

Anger is a true, honest emotion, of course, and there are a lot of angry people today. However, there are many ways to dispose of that anger other than just lashing out at the most convenient target.

I’ve seen it argued that Mark Twain was a crusty, intolerant old codger who could be rather insulting in his rebukes, that if it was OK for Twain, why not the average Joe?

Well, the average Joe doesn’t have the intellect or grace of Mark Twain, whose words were always well-chosen and well-placed, usually with a certain charm that left the target a large degree of dignity. And, Twain’s barbs were, for the most part, observations of the human race in general. I mean, it is rather difficult to quibble with this observation of his: “Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.”

If only.

The argument has been made that the liberals, conservatives, libertarians do it, why can’t I?

Because it is wrong.

Because it denigrates the conversation.

Because the moment you toss invective into the conversation, you negate everything else you have said, including the salient points you may have raised.

You turn off your audience, you anger the person you are in supposed “discussion” with and you come across as uninformed and incapable of arguing your position coherently.

Plus, the offended party has legitimate recourse to strike back. I don’t think Facebook imposes the “Turn the other cheek” rule.

None of us should be so thin-skinned that we cannot accept and deal with fair and honest criticism. If you don’t like what somebody has to say, fine. Make a cogent remark, argue your case, but don’t come charging out of the gate calling names and pointing fingers, particularly the middle digit. It’s not going to get you anywhere but snickered at and, if it occurs on Facebook, as so many of these insults do, be prepared to be deleted, hidden or “unfriended,” the ultimate social media punishment. It is not a violation of the 1^st Amendment, by the way, if somebody deletes your comment because the owner of the Facebook page – much like the publisher of a news outlet – is the final gatekeeper to free speech and can make the decision regarding what is published and what is not published.

The nastiness isn’t reserved to one political persuasion or another, it just seems that way.

If your politics reside on the left, you will, naturally, be more aware of barbs from the right. If your politics are conservative in nature, you will feel the bite of those from the left.

Want to start a fight?

Start some discussion with the words: “I don’t care what side you’re on, this is funny.”

Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Especially political humor.

When it mistakenly appeared that Hillary Clinton would win the election, I was wondering how to deal with my Republican friends.

Certainly, I told myself, I would not be rude enough to suggest that they “Deal with it,” because I hold my friends in higher regard. I knew they would not be happy and that if we were to attempt any kind of reunification, we needed to be gracious winners.

I wish I could say the same courtesy has been extended.

But, the ugliness persists.

The anti-POTUS slurs have been volleyed hot and heavy with little regard for substantiation.

I mean, OK, I get it, you don’t like the guy in the Oval Office, but tell me why, give me some reasons. Make a case, share your reasons, do something more than simply tossing out one of those childish taunts making the rounds. Be original, share your reason for disliking him instead of using some tired old playground name.

The pro-POTUS discussion, if you want to call it that, has also been ugly with specious references and citations linked to questionable sources.

Throughout our history, we’ve had some very ugly political situations, it’s the nature of politics.

But, somehow, we found ways to overcome, to set aside our differences, no matter how extreme, and persevere for the good of the nation.

I simply don’t see that happening now.

In fact, I see even greater separation, distrust and anger.

We will, on the one hand, see a continuation of the pep rallies across the nation in administration strongholds, opportunities to bask in adulation. On the other, we will see a continuation of the protests and demonstrations that have somewhat unified the various factions of the left.

The clash will continue.

It will worsen.

And this chaos will continue.

Unless we draw a metaphoric line on the keyboard that we will not cross.

Ed Kociela is an opinion columnist. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Email: edkociela.mx@gmail.com

Twitter: @STGnews, @EdKociela