SERMONS 

Debate in Our Democracy

My eighth grade English teacher, Mrs. Weaver traditionally ended the year by offering predictions for each of her students. That seemed like fun to me, until she predicted that I would grow up to be “a political bigot.” At the time this confused me because I had no idea what it meant. Looking back now, I recall that as a youth I was rather fond of debate, a determined traditionalist, and glibly dismissive of views that differed from my own.

Like so many others, of course, I was warned that the best policy is to avoid the topics of religion and politics. Why, I thought? What would that leave for a people to talk about? After all, what’s left?? Years later, however, this helped me to understand the essential role of professional sports in our culture.

Today I want to focus on the nature of political discussion in our nation and in our state. I believe that our approach to political discussion and debate has become so bad that it fails to serve our democracy. In her new book, Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Ann Coulter writes: “Political “debate” in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport.” On this point, I wholeheartedly agree.

But before we go on to talk about politics, let me get something on the table, especially for those of you who don’t know me very well. Last week, Jason made a rather startling admission from this very pulpit. Today, I must follow suit. So brace yourselves:

I am a liberal.

Somehow, between Mrs. Weaver’s prediction and my sophomore year in college, my beliefs and values changed considerably. In 1968, if I could have voted, I would have voted for Nixon. By 1972, when I could vote, I voted for McGovern. I know that I’m a liberal because most of the positions I hold on political issues are the positions held by “liberals” and opposed by “conservatives.” I support a woman’s right to choose: I oppose the death penalty; I support affirmative action; I oppose school vouchers; I support higher taxes to provide a stronger education; I think everyone in this country, whether they can afford to buy it or not, should have adequate health care; and I think that those who enjoy the most wealth, the most benefit from living in this great experiment in democracy and capitalism of ours, ought to be asked to contribute a somewhat larger percentage of that wealth to the operation of that experiment.

When I lived in New York, before we came to Tennessee two years ago, I was just a run-of-the-mill liberal. Since I’ve moved here, I’ve been told that I’m an “ultra-liberal.” One day, another liberal colleague and I took the minority view during a lunch table debate by arguing that children should not be spanked. A day later, we learned that after our departure, someone at the table had remarked “ It’s because of people like that that this country is going to hell.” And so I’ve learned that identifying myself as a liberal, or speaking up to defend liberal positions, does not always endear me to people.

I tell you that I’m a liberal, first because I feel safe doing so here, for I suspect that there are just a few liberals in attendance today. More importantly, I tell you because you deserve to know what my bias is up front. I won’t pretend to be objective about politics, for I don’t believe that anyone can be without bias. But I hope that I can earn your trust, even if you lean to the conservative side, if I honestly admit my biases and then address political issues in a truly fair way.

In preparing this talk, as in preparing all the classes I teach at Cumberland University, I’ve tried my very best to recognize my own biases and even to deliberately counter those biases. For I do not intend to offer a “liberal” political message here today. My purpose today is to focus on how we conduct political discussion and debate – how we talk about our political differences.

Our founding fathers originally limited voting to only those white men who owned a certain amount of property. It has been argued that they did this in an effort to limit the vote only to those most likely to be literate. They knew that democratic decisions made by ill-informed and ignorant people would not be good decisions, that a democracy depends on well-informed voters and open and serious debate. That’s why Thomas Jefferson once wrote that of all his many accomplishments, among them being President of the United States, he was most proud of having founded an educational institution, the University of Virginia.

Why do I say that the nature of our political discussion in America today is so dismal? What’s wrong with the way we approach political debate?

Let’s begin by trying to imagine the kind of debate and dialogue that would best serve an effective democracy. What would such an ideal political discourse be like? And how does our current political discourse compare?

First:

Ideally, our political discussions would be based on lots of information, which is easily available. The basic facts of any issue would be clear and undisputed.

Today, the basic facts around some issues are often hard to find. The conscientious citizen who reads widely from a variety of viewpoints will find contradiction after contradiction and may wind up in despair not knowing who to trust. Statistics are often misleading, and then different sources provide different and contradictory statistics. So often we’re not sure of the facts.

Second:

Ideally our news media would strive to tell the whole story.

Today, the only place on TV where I see a fair attempt to tell the whole story in a balanced fashion is on the Jim Lehrer News Hour. NPR also does a fine job. Beyond that, one has to read newspapers and magazines. It takes considerable effort to become well-informed on any issue.

Third:

Ideally, arguments for and against any position or policy would be clearly stated, and fully explained without distortion or exaggeration,

• Today, media coverage focuses on Sound Bites, brief comments, taken out of context and chosen because they are provocative, not because they are enlightening.
• Too often, selected Sound Bites are clever or demeaning. This is most flagrant when an arguer presents an opposition argument – the key strategy here is the Straw Man argument, where a serious argument is distorted so as to make it seem ridiculous. (In an interview the other day, Ann Coulter said that in the war on terrorism, “the liberals are rooting for the terrorists.”)

Fourth:

Ideally, we would have respectful discussion without personal attacks.

Today, personal attacks are common. Anyone who dares to express a controversial opinion must be prepared for some serious name-calling and social ostracism at the very least. If you work in the legislature and support an income tax, our self-appointed defenders of democracy will berate you for hours on the radio and then they’ll urge their supporters to come to your home or harass you in the supermarket. If you convince a federal judge with your argument against school sponsored recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, our United States Senators, in a shameless effort to score political points, will call your ideas “ridiculous” (President Bush), “illogical” (Mr. Lieberman), and “just nuts” (Mr. Daschle). People will accuse you of trying to undermine our patriotism and the special status of America as a “Christian Nation.” -- It becomes especially ironic when they quote Thomas Jefferson, who originally wrote the phrase endorsing the “wall of separation between the church and state” -- calling his references to “the creator” as a witness against you. -- Then you had better hide your daughter someplace, and decide what to do about those folks calling in anonymous threats on your answering machine.

Fifth, and Finally:

Ideally, discussion would remain clearly focused on an issue or policy.

Today, aside from those personal attacks, the purpose of political debate seems to be much more focused on verbal, and sometimes even physical warfare between opposing camps. That great social analyst, Stephen Stills, observed this tendency in the political climate of the late 60’s with people “Singing songs and carrying signs, Mostly saying “Hooray for Our Side.” The real goal of debate, it seems, is to prove that your side is right, not only now, but always, and that the other side is not only wrong but also stupid, selfish, manipulative or evil. This is Stanley Fish’s complaint about Bill Bennett’s attack on liberals.

“It is one thing to believe, and believe fervently, that someone is wrong: it is quite another to believe that the someone you think to be wrong is by virtue of that error unpatriotic, devoted to lies, and downright evil.”

Far too often today, argument about an actual issue becomes secondary to this larger attack. I call this the politics of partisan attack. On the right, read Cal Thomas and Mona Charen, who write about a great many issues but focus always on the same theme, how ignorant, immoral, hypocritical and vicious liberals are. But liberals indulge in the same strategy. On the left, read Molly Ivins columns or Michael Moore’s new book Stupid White Men for persistent ridicule of George W. Bush and his entire administration.

In my mind, the very worst instances of this rhetoric of partisan attack are on the talk radio circuit. Virtually everyone – conservatives and liberals – agree that talk radio is owned by conservatives. I’m not sure why this is. Ann Coulter says that liberal talk just doesn’t sell and takes this as further evidence that conservatives really do speak for most Americans.

Consider our local Talk Radio stations, WTN and WLAC, which offer conservative political commentary all day long. If you want, you can spend your whole day listening to Steve Gill, G. Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Valentine, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity. This is not news. It is the most biased, the most inflammatory commentary possible.

If you’ve never listened to talk radio, you will accuse me of exaggeration, but I urge you to check it out for yourselves. According to our talk radio hosts, and to most of the audience members who call in to comment, liberals are immoral, unpatriotic, selfish powermongers who have highjacked both the mainstream media and most of the government in order to undermine capitalism, to destroy everyone’s belief in God, and to steal money from hardworking Americans and give it to lazy vagrants.

Anne Coulter is right that when debate degenerates into name calling and attacks, no one is well served. She complains that liberals too often avoid the actual issues and rely on calling their conservative opponents “angry” or “hateful” or “stupid” or “selfish” or “mean.” If we could respond with civility and respect, even to those who disagree with us, we would greatly improve the quality of political discussion.

If you read Coulter’s new book, with an open mind (and if you’re a liberal I this will be a challenge ), you will find a good deal of evidence that liberals do indeed engage in some pretty nasty political debate. She writes, for example “No matter how inured one becomes to liberal hate speech, the regularity with which Republicans are compared to Nazis still astonishes.” (8) But you’ll also find places where Coulter is trying a bit too hard to place blame or to score rhetorical points. “The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination.” (Just in case you’re wondering why she thinks liberals are infatuated with racial discrimination, you should know that this is Coulter’s own preferred term for policies that are normally called “affirmative action.”)

But here’s the curious thing about Coulter’s book. She names the problem pretty accurately, but isn’t quite fair or observant in placing blame. For she writes, and I do quote, “It’s all the liberal’s fault.” According to Coulter, all of the name calling, all of the outrageous attacks, all the distortion and all of the lies are committed by liberals. (Well, in the interest of fairness, she does admit that Rush Limbaugh may have been mistaken on one or two occasions.)

Even more bothersome than this, however, is the fact that Coulter herself, on nearly every page, commits the very abuses that she so forcefully berates liberals for. Please judge for yourself. Coulter’s point is that debate should focus on reasoned arguments and evidence. Do you expect someone making that argument to write this???

“Liberals hate America, they hate “flag-wavers,” they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”

Ironically, then, while Coulter denounces the kind of political debate that attacks and polarizes, she makes a major contribution to it herself.

If this is an accurate characterization of American political discussion -- and I think it is – How can we expect our democracy to work? In this climate, how can we become well informed and actually consider the real arguments about the issues?

Why is our political rhetoric like this??

1. Human Nature: The untrained egocentric human mind is threatened by opposing ideas, so it brings out all weapons at its disposal to obliterate the enemy. Any counter argument is good – it doesn’t matter whether it’s legitimate or not. So, if you cannot think of a good reason for rejecting an argument, you can simply call your opponent a name like “ignorant,” or “fascist” or “evil.” With some audiences, “liberal” or “conservative” will do.
2. Education: Only with careful training do we learn to recognize the difference between a strong and weak arguments. Sadly, our schools tell people what to think and not how to think. As a result many cannot distinguish between a personal attack and a valid argument based on convincing evidence. They rush to strongly held conclusions based on far too little effort and consideration. Just look at the success of modern advertising which is conspicuous in nothing more than in the fact that it almost never stoops to actually offering us a good reason to buy any product.
3. The influence of the Media: TV & Radio want most of all to attract listeners (so that they provide an audience to buy all those products), so even in the news they stress entertainment value over minor things like accuracy, depth, and even fairness. As a result, their programming offers:
   1. Far too little time and attention for any full, accurate, of informative political discussion
   2. Preference for the sensational, the Sound Bite – something that will get people’s attention. Of course, the sensational is not likely to be the most accurate or informative. (Note the “Point – Counterpoint” approach used so often for political issues – like on “Crossfire” a program which far too often looks like a verbal equivalent to Big Time Wrestling.)
4. The two party system: Despite our many third parties, American political discussion is still dominated by the Republicans (who lean conservative) and the democrats (who lean liberal.) It’s not enough to win the voter over on a single issue: we must win her heart and soul and convince her

What can we DO???

I believe that our UU Principles give us some valuable guidance.

If we believe in the “right of conscience” and in “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning”

• it follows we have the right and the responsibility to think things through for ourselves.

If we “covenant to affirm and promote” “the goal of a world community with peace, liberty and justice for all,” and in “justice, equity and compassion in human relations,”

• then we have a responsibility to act socially and politically, to take part, and to work for what we believe is right even as we respect the differing views of others.

If we believe in “the inherent worth and dignity of every person,”

• then we must open our minds and hearts, yes, even to those who vote differently than we do. Instead of arrogantly assuming that I am right and others must be ignorant or misguided, I must develop intellectual humility by recognizing that I do not know everything and that I may be wrong even about the very things that I am most sure of. If we listen carefully, we may just learn something.

If we believe in “the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large,”

• We must insist that all voices be heard, that we work to welcome and protect especially those voices which may seem like a threat to some.
• Let’s model our ideal of political discussion on that uniquely American and uniquely democratic form of music, Jazz, in which each distinct voice is to be heard, sometimes joining in the melody, sometimes providing a welcome harmony, sometimes stand playing solo, but always an essential part of the band.
• We must set an example for others, teaching them that honest discussion and disagreement is one thing, but that the politics of partisan attack is another.
• If you’re a liberal, I urge you to be especially critical of those who speak for liberals, urging them to stick to the issues and to treat their opponents with respect and dignity. If you’re a conservative, I urge you to be especially critical of those who speak for conservatives.

We should also strive to get people of all different viewpoints talking effectively with each other.

I see a great danger in the fragmentation of audiences in our modern popular media. If you wish, you can hear nothing but liberal voices or nothing but conservative voices all day long. This can only encourage the politics of partisan attack as one side continues to demonize the other.

We need to encourage everyone, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican, to reject the politics of partisan attack. Last year, WLAC ran a promo for the Phil Valentine show in which Phil responded to a caller. “I can’t talk to you any more, Karen” said Valentine, “because you’re an idiot.” There was no context, no indication of how Karen had deserved such abuse, just Valentine arrogantly ridiculing someone who had made the effort to call in and to share another viewpoint. This is not news and it is not useful as political discussion. Thoughtful conservatives and liberals should both condemn it. Valentine and his like should be off the air, not because anyone censors them but because people just stop listening.

In closing, I want to speak a few words in praise of George W. Like most Americans, I didn’t vote for the man. I’m still troubled about how he became the president, and I disagree with many of his policies and decisions. Nevertheless, I want to give the man credit where credit is due.

During the presidential campaign, I was impressed with the way Bush handled his differences with Gore. Bush never resorted to name calling, and he never seemed disrespectful of his opponent or his opponent’s views. He frequently said, “we have a difference of opinion.” Indeed, Bush’s manner of respectful disagreement in the debates, as compared to Gore’s indulgence in deep sighs and rolling his eyes, may have won a number of voters.

Of course, the nice thing about being at the top of the ticket is that you can keep your hands clean while others do the dirty work for you, and plenty of Bush supporters were busy attacking Gore so that Bush didn’t have to.

Nevertheless, it was nice to see Bush acting as a role model for civic and civil debate. We can begin to improve political debate in America by following our President’s lead. Begin by welcoming and respecting the views of your opponents and refusing to call names, distort arguments or tell those who challenge us that they should leave the country. And then lets insist that those who engage in political discussion do the same. If they don’t, lets complain and lets turn them off. Let’s clearly explain our own positions and stop trying to define our opponents. Let them speak for themselves.

Let’s live up to our principles and reject the politics of partisan attack. Let’s prefer listening carefully with an open heart, let’s prefer honest and fair discussion, and let’s infuse our political debate with a real love of truth and love of our neighbors.