2009.09.16
Improving the tone of this conversation
A recent comment from Other John prompted us to do some serious thinking about the tone of conversation on this blog. Our assessment: We don't like it. OJ summed it up too well: "Most of what I see is sniping, snarky language and negativity from people on all sides of the spectrum, and it's just not worth wasting time here any more."
As a result, we are instituting a new set of Terms of Service for participating on the blog. You can read them here. Comments that violate these guidelines will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
The guidelines can be summed up this way: Ask yourself this, always, before you press the "Submit Comment" button: "Does this comment add anything of value and substance to this conversation?" If you cannot answer in the affirmative, do everyone a favor and delete it.
If you don't, there's a good chance we will.
After the jump, you can read a preview of my Sunday column on this topic.
A conversation more raucous than harmonious
We are coming up on the third anniversary of the launch of The RT, the Roanoke Times editorial page blog.
When we first went live with the blog, we had some lofty expectations for it. Here’s how we put it in the welcome message: “What The RT becomes will be largely up to readers. But we envision a place for a healthy and civil dialogue among The Roanoke Times editorial page staff and the community.”
The dialogue has been healthy, anyway, if not always so civil. The RT is consistently among the most popular blogs at roanoke.com, and we regularly receive more than 200 comments a day.
When he was first hired by The Roanoke Times, retired Editorial Page Editor Tommy Denton said of the editorial and commentary pages, ““Here is where the bully pulpit and the soapbox become one, extending one of the finest and most enduring of this nation’s traditions: the raucous harmony of a free people holding forth.”
We hoped the blog could be a fascinating extension of that “raucous harmony,” where people could disagree without being disagreeable and discuss ideas without getting personal.
Alas, that has been difficult to achieve. Despite pretty strict policing, the comments lean far more towards raucous than anything resembling harmony.
This was brought home to me last weekend when this comment, from a regular and respected poster who goes by the moniker Other John, appeared:
Today I’m making a commitment to better use my time. It used to be fun and enjoyable to come on these boards and engage in debate and discussion over the issues, even when it got contentious, because at least the tone was moderately civil most of the time.
But, as I have read through the comments the past few days since returning from a road trip to New York and taking time away from here, most of what I see is sniping, snarky language and negativity from people on all sides of the spectrum, and it’s just not worth wasting time here any more.
So to everyone whom I’ve had a chance to talk with, it was nice while it lasted. I’m signing off The RT blog for the last time. I’m getting back to my work on this beautiful Saturday, and then I’m working in the garden putting my energy and effort into creating something beautiful.
Other John was one of the good guys. A true moderate, I disagreed with him about as often as I agreed with him. But he always brought a decency and respect to his comments that I deeply appreciated, whether I agreed with him or not.
It saddened me to see that he’d been driven off, though I could not argue with his assessment of the tone of the online commentary lately: sniping, snarky language filled with negativity from people on all sides of the spectrum.
This is not what we wanted. Unfortunately, the commentary on our blog reflects the state of the national discourse.
It seems to me that the voices of people like Other John — who I imagine represent the real silent majority in America today — are drowned out by the likes of Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, et al, and their supporters who rush online to carry out ideological holy wars on message boards, comment sections and blogs.
We can’t do anything about that at the national level. But we can try to something about it on The RT. And here’s our plan: We are putting in place specific terms of service for those who participate on The RT. They can be found in a link on the blog’s front page (blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/).
Those terms include the usual: no profanity or obsenity. Nothing libelous. No personal attacks on other commenters. It can all be summed up in this paragraph: “Ask yourself if you would use the language and tone in the comment you’re about to post if you were having a face-to-face discussion. We do not require that commenters identify themselves, but ask yourself if you would want your reputation to depend on your comments.”
We will police these standards studiously, and we ask the community to help us by e-mailing us when they see violations. Comments that violate our terms will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
Through this effort, I hope that the signal-to-noise ratio will improve dramatically, and that The RT will once more become a place where civil discourse is the rule, not the exception, and where people like Other John feel like their time is not wasted.
Radmacher is the editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
RSS feed 
It is a shame you can't truly ban someone because this blog software is stuck in 1999. You really should implement some type of registration system. It would also make it much easier for us to follow conversations and be notified when new comments appear that follow-up those previously posted.
You really should consider using some decent blogging software so it will be easier for you to maintain.
Comment by Jack — September 16, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Jack,
As I'm fairly certain I've already explained to you, the blog software is beyond the editorial staff's control. We are talking with the online folks and hoping to implement some sort of registration system, but for now we have to work with what we have.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Does that mean Christian can't call Norm Coleman an idiot anymore?
peace,
Bob
Comment by Bob H — September 16, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
This is a welcome change in my opinion!
Comment by Susan St. Clair — September 16, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Dan,
I'm a conservative. Maybe you need to just explain it to me using shorter words.
Anyway... I just found it interesting that you said you would ban people for multiple offenses when you so clearly have no way of doing that.
A different name, a different throw-away email address, and possibly a different IP (depending on how old this software really is) and you'd never know it was the same person.
Comment by Jack — September 16, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
@Bob #3: We will also be striving to ensure that we set a good example ourselves in conducting civil discourse.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
@Jack #5: Even a registration system can be spoofed, Jack. I don't think anything is foolproof, unless we call every commenter up and verify their identity like we do letters to the editor.
In any case, we can track IP addresses and at least make it as difficult as possible given our technical limitations for repeat offenders to come back (and if they continue to repeat offend, we'll be deleting their posts, anyway).
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
#6,
Is that a yes or a no? Or some qualified answer to a simple question?
Comment by Bob H — September 16, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Bob H,
It means they will try. I doubt they'll ban themselves, though.
Comment by Jack — September 16, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I give it two days before people are accusing you of favoritism and pointing out the sins of others. Some of the worst offenders are people that support you. Moderating a political forum is like picking through kitty litter.
Freerepublic and Democratunderground just kick out anyone who doesn't agree with their positions. That makes it easy. Lucianne does not allow people to address one another.
I hope I'm the first one banned. That would be cool.
Comment by Henry — September 16, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Henry, we expect people of all political persuasions to follow the rules. You're right, though, that doesn't mean people blinded by ideology won't levy unfounded charges of favoritism against us.
Comment by C. Trejbal — September 16, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Henry,
Two days? I'll take that bet. I'll bet it will be before the end of today. (Actually, I have already been accused of exercising favoritism today, but that was prior to this post and therefor doesn't count.)
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
11,
Some of us who aren't blinded by ideology will still see some of your posts for what they are....
Comment by Bob H — September 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
@13 Keenly insightful and illuminating?
Comment by C. Trejbal — September 16, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
14
Au contraire! Left leaning to outright liberal.
I am still awaiting this editorial promised almost a week ago....
http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2009/09/11/creigh-deeds-deceptive-power-ad/
The add is still running. Along with some criticizing McDonnell for suporting the same legislation Deeds voted for.
Comment by Bob H — September 16, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Bob,
The tone we are talking about has nothing to do with ideology. It is possible for folks with differing ideologies to have civil discussions and even disagreements.
The Deeds editorial is ready to run, and should make it in by Sunday, if not before. Since we just had an editorial criticizing Deeds, we thought we'd give it a few days.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Will this extend to deleting posts that assert the undocumented or unprovable or unsubstantiated as anything other than that... especially truth (however firmly some may believe the assertion)?
Comment by MrRational — September 16, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
I have no idea what you're talking about - but probably not.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 16, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
And you call yourself a reporter? LOL
Comment by MrRational — September 16, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Dan,
oh, you mean like these 2 that ran 4 days apart?
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/217805
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/217409
Funny, I don't see the Sunday editorial being critical of Deeds much. It exclaims what a great idea it was. The timing is what is being criticized more than the candidate.
Maybe the difference is the political affiliation? You tell me....
Comment by Bob H — September 16, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
So like Trump on The Apprentice you get to say, "YOU'RE BANNED!"? Nice.
Comment by Jim — September 16, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
So I guess lefties can't use the derogatory name for those that attend the tea rallies any more eh? Kinda sucks, takes a little of the appeal away no?
Comment by Uptheriver — September 16, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Three cheers for the RTEB!!
Comment by Danny — September 16, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
I applaud this move as well and I hope you have emailed Other John and asked him to give us (yet) another chance. Losing him is a real blow to the forum IMO. I pledge to do my part and look forward to a more civil discussion. Ideology cannot be expressed or refuted without insult by some people, no doubt. I think we all know I do not respond well to it, but I am more than willing to give my rhetoric a strenuous workout.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 16, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
As the recipient of much of the "snarky negativity" in these pages, I welcome rules for more civil discourse. Kudos!
Comment by Suzie — September 16, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Bravo, editors. I hope the level of conversation here can be elevated beyond mere partisan cheerleading and into more thoughtful commentary and exchanges. And I say that as one who has been snarky on occasion!
Comment by Saintbridge — September 16, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
#25 - You and me both, Suzie.
Comment by Patrick — September 16, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Hey Dan, I wish you luck on this endeavor. However, getting some people to resist their distasteful side, when speaking in ideological terms, is like getting a southerner to resist sweet tea.
I've always viewed my political leanings as "pragmatic independent". And I've rationalized my military service, at the time, as "not always agreeing with you, but, willing to serve so that you have that right". If we all posted from a standpoint of mutual respect, this could be the start of something good. I sincerely hope so.
Comment by Just Saying... — September 16, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Honestly, when I first sat down and wrote out that comment, my only intention was to vent my frustrations about what I had been seeing on the RT. Taking nearly a week away from the threads and coming back with a clear mind and a fresh perspective, I was able to see a lot more than I had before the break. I had noticed a lot of these things earlier, and worked on refraining from commenting on numerous issues that typically drive a sharp, immovable wedge between people…or avoiding threads that had already achieved a level of bickering that kept the dialogue from appearing constructive.
But I finally hit my proverbial straw moment and had to voice my thoughts on the matter. I remember a saying my dad taught me years ago. He said that if a person could not explain their point of view or opinion on an issue without resorting to name-calling, swearing, or other belligerence…then their stance on it was weak or insecure. I take that a step farther in saying that when I see things like that, it makes me not pay attention to the rest of what the person has to say. I enjoy vigorous debate over the issues. I don’t enjoy what the RT had degraded to, and perhaps the change of rules and improved enforcement will improve the tone.
I can understand the heated battle lines over issues that cut to the moral fabric of us all and the foundation of what makes us who we are. Issues like abortion, religion, gay marriage, evolution vs creation, etc…essentially anything that can be tied to a person’s basis for how they form the remainder of their views…those are going to have the most stark lines drawn in the sand and the most intensive defense of each position bantered around. Unfortunately, the defense of those positions often degrades to criticizing the other, rather than properly explaining the position in the first place. Thankfully, there have been a few times when I’ve been able to engage in an enlightening, informative discussion over these sorts of issues without having the conversation fall to such levels of barbarism. My position and that of the other person did not change, nor did I expect them to…but, it did give me more insight into a position opposite of mine and gave me a new understanding and respect for why a person might believe in that position on an issue I disagree with them upon.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I truly believe if we can set aside the spear of partisanship and the stone of vitriol, we can sit down and find, at the very minimum, a common understanding of each other on such issues that face us today like the healthcare debate, cap & trade and the environment, national security and fighting terrorism, energy policy, gun rights and more. We may never come to a consensus on any of those issues, but I’m hopeful that if we can approach those issues with open minds and hearts and an inclination toward logical thinking, problem solving, and calm discussion, we can figure out how to approach these issues and make significant progress on each front that we can all generally agree makes us better off than if we had done nothing at all.
I don’t know where this recent tone came from first. Did it begin at the national level years ago and filter down to the local level? Did the sniping begin locally and spread through the grassroots until it hit the national scene? I don’t know if anyone can ever determine the answer to the age old chicken and egg question, nor do I think we should focus on how it began, but rather on its end. As I said to begin with, I did not expect my simple comment to do much of anything, but the folks at the Roanoke Times took it seriously, and it appears that it will have an impact for the better. Maybe that’s the true lesson out of all of this. One voice expressed at one moment in time, without sniping or negativity to cloud the argument being made, helped to effect a change in the status quo. Perhaps if we can all come together with our individual voices and find our common ground, a greater voice can emerge to help impact things on a larger scale and not only change the tone of our current political system, but actually help bring about needed changes for our future. Perhaps this is a large task, possibly an immeasurable one, but it’s one I feel is worth aiming for.
Comment by Other John — September 17, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I understand Other John's point. But I have to say, and not trying to cause trouble here, but a large part of the problem is with the provocative nature of the RTEB's threads, themselves. For example, how can you have a genuine "conversation about the issues" when the RTEB constantly goes personal against the motives of those who speak out against health care? When right out of the box, your movement is called "racist", how do you progress from there? Or when a RTEB post talks about "right wing nuts" or an editor cheers layoffs at a conservative organization; when you have a starting point like that, how do you expect responses that fit the new improved TOS? When a RTEB thread is a violation of its own TOS, what example do you hope to set?
It is true I constantly question the motives of those pushing health care, but it's the movers and shakers whose motives I question. That would be those in positions of influence, such as Democratic politicians and the media, including the RTEB. I think I am allowed to do that. But I try (but sometimes fail) not to question the motives of Sandi, Will, Kristen, Saintbridge, Rob, and the other liberals. They are people who believe in their positions like I do mine. But I do think it should be OK to call people out on inconsistences, illogic, and sloppy or absent documentation.
Comment by Suzie — September 17, 2009 @ 10:11 am
OJ,
I, for one, really enjoy your presence. I hope you will be here for a long time to come. You have contributed in many many ways unrelated to the political spectrum of comments on here, and I hope you will continue to do so.
Dan,
As a former content moderator (and Terms of Service policy enforcer) of multiple sites (usually getting 100-1000x more volume than this particular blog does) I assume the following will be true with the new guidelines. If they are not, can you please explain the rationale behind the decision in hopes that we (the community here) can make this a better place.
1) I assume that when a comment is marked for being removed, the author will be notified, or given a chance of some sort to re-write. I have written some obfuscated posts in my time of which one that I remember could have been misconstrued as a personal attack (though that was not my intention.) I was given the opportunity to re-write it, and hope this is the normal and not the exception.
1a) With violations of content like this, is there going to be some sort of three strikes (or 4, or 1?) rule with prior notification before subsequent offenses? (i.e. 3 posts made within 3 minutes don't constitute 3 violations but rather 1 violation with an explanation on how to avoid them in the future?) Obviously you guys aren't monitoring 24/7.
2) Will the RTEB who obviously hold a position of "power" by being able to publish their views in a more official capacity consider themselves a member of the community, or something more than that? As a content creator/moderator. We were always told to "smile from the wrists down" when typing, and to realize we were a bit more of a "target" for hostility so we should have a thicker skin than a normal member of the community. Will you be holding the same (in my opinion, logical) standard, or are you considering yourself and Christian, Luanne, et al, to be just members of the community? For example... I would assume for me to call you would be a violation. But if I were to say something more of a sweeping generalization to you like "your paper's slant is stemmed from delusional pipedreams of a utopian society." I would assume that is ok.
3) There is something to be said about debating the art of debate, and I can see how that bleeds quickly into personal insult and hurt feelings. For instance, I have a habit of looking up statistics and pointing out the fallacies involved (like John R's post the other day about the cost of oil/gasoline in the cash for clunkers debate.) This certainly wasn't personal despite he and I having radically different views. Will this sort of rebuttal be allowed to rebuff positions that are made on false assumptions, or are we only to respond if we are "adding value (of our own opinion) to the conversation?"
Thanks for your time, and despite differing beliefs, I know how hard it is to moderate stuff like this... and EXACTLY how frustrating it may be. So Please don't think your efforts are unnoticed or unappreciated.
Comment by scott — September 17, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Suzie, I tend to agree that sometimes the thread posts themselves start the conversation out on the wrong foot, and that likewise doesn't help. I am generally opposed to the past healthcare plans out there, though I have not had a chance to review its latest incarnation. I do question several of the items being floated around the White House and Congress, and I try to do so solely on the basis of what I've read and the facts I can discern from them. I do my best to avoid getting emotional about things, though sometimes I don't keep that in check well enough. I think maybe that's why despite my questioning of things regarding healthcare, or global warming, or other issues...I've been able to avoid being branded or painted with those sorts of broad brushes. I have a high level of disdain for pettiness, pointless bickering, name calling, finger pointing, or other generally unproductive actions, regardless of who is using them. I completely agree that the wider debate over healthcare, taxes, and other current issues has been highly tainted by immediate slaps of racist labels on people by folks in the media. It doesn't help, and it cheapens many of the legitimate concerns being voiced. Likewise, continued efforts to take shots at the administration and trying to undermine it don't help move the dialogue forward either. Both sides do plenty to foster the problem. I just refuse to give it wings anymore.
Comment by Other John — September 17, 2009 @ 10:45 am
TIMING IS EVERYTHING...so the saying goes..pardon my lack of attribution.
But I find it interesting that at this point in time, the call goes out for more civil discourse. Having endured years of BUSH lied,Cheney's corrupt, there's GOP family values for you, taxcuts for the rich...etc etc. and other deep, thought provoking analysis, NOW IS THE TIME for the peanut gallery to tone it down.
The majority of the nation sees the democrat party and its leader president Obama attempting to move our country to the left quickly and with little discussion. A Stimulus bill(that isn't)formulated before the president is inaugurated and signed into law within the first month. A bailout and payout to a union-laden auto industry costing the taxpayer billions, a party yearning to keep itself in power through the taxpayer funded works of groups like ACORN, a lack of will to fight the war on terror and keep the nation/world safe and lately the demand that legislation be rammed through congress that will lead to the government running and allocating our healthcare.
Speaker Pelosi "wellsup" recalling violence that happened some 30 years ago. People on the left demean legitimate protest as racist mobs. The utopia promised by the enlightened media isn't materializing. Tanking poll numbers describing the job approval of the president and congress indicate America no longer trusts this government. And NOW the call goes out here and nationwide for more civil discourse.
IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT.....pardon my lack of attribution.
Comment by BUD — September 18, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Apparently, the truth hurts sometimes and as more and more of the extreme left is exposed, there comes a time when the "afflicted need comfort", Bud.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 18, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Bud, I can understand your frustrations. I did not like the tone many people on the left had with Bush and Cheney either: it was disrespectful and rude…kind of like many conservatives today with Obama. There are many things I highly disliked about Bush and Cheney, and several policies of which I disagreed, but they were still my President and Vice President, and I tried to show them the respect they earned by being elected to those offices. I didn’t vote for them the second time around, but I still got behind them as the leaders of this country, even though I questioned many of the things they did. Same is true with Obama. I voted for him, and while I felt some of his initial strides were good, I’m very concerned with where he is heading now on several fronts and I’m not in favor of significant portions of the healthcare proposal, some of his energy and environmental policy, and a few other things he’s tackling. I think people too quickly forget that Obama, like Bush, you, or me is just another human being trying to do what they think and feel is right. We may not agree on what is right, but we all (hopefully) work toward that end. So Obama is going about healthcare in a way that a lot of people don’t like. That’s understandable. Healthcare is one of the few true life or death issues out there that actually will impact each and every one of us during our lives in a direct fashion. That’s why we have to get it right: we can’t screw it up. So, in my opinion, all the calls from people who still question the birth certificate issue, or the people who actually are motivated by racial differences, who interject that into otherwise legitimate debate about something like healthcare, it clouds the debate and makes it very difficult to get the opposing opinion heard and taken seriously as legitimate concern or other ideas. For what it’s worth, I felt the same way with Bush and the efforts his administration made in fighting terrorism. Ok, a lot of people disagreed with it, and that’s ok. What I did not like was the constant calls of ‘Bush Lied and People Died’ because I found it patently absurd. I don’t think he lied. He may have been mislead with faulty intelligence data, but I don’t think he knew it was faulty when he used it to justify our actions. The data, at the time, confirmed what Clinton administration officials believed, and it seemed legit at the time. Only after we were engaged did better info come to light that called the original intel into question. When that happened, that’s where I think Bush messed up, because I didn’t feel he handled that situation well enough, nor do I think his administration planned for the occupation phase in Iraq or Afghanistan properly. There used to be the concept of loyal opposition in this country. I fully believe it was before my time here though, because I’ve not seen much of it. The party that lost the election would still champion their views, but in a reasonably respectful manner. They would not show disrespect to the party in power, and would work to find ways to compromise on issues to make progress for the greater good. That really doesn’t happen now. When did that start? I haven’t a clue. But, I think we could use a big dose of it now. We could have used it with Bush too. I can only imagine how much better we’d be if there was some level of cooperation, respect, and civility interjected into society today. We might actually solve some of our most pressing issues. I guess I’m a perpetual optimist now…I think it can be done, but someone has to make the first move.
Comment by Other John — September 18, 2009 @ 8:27 am
@33
Not to mention that Pelosi completely glossed over the violence committed against peaceful protesters by pro-Democrat union thugs and their cohorts. It's hard to take these people seriously.
Comment by Henry — September 18, 2009 @ 8:57 am
@#35 Great post, I couldn't agree more. To the right-wingers don't just jump on the wagon being pulled by Limbaugh, Beck,O'Reilly or Hannity, just to mention a few, try to find out where it is you are going and that the horses are the only ones with blinders on. The office of the President deserves respect, no matter which party is sitting there!.
Comment by Randy M. — September 18, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Randy, thanks for the advice... And agreed the office of the President deserves respect. However make sure you pay attention to what the people you mention are actually saying as well. I apologize that those individuals are the ones actually trying to keep journalism alive and doing some investigative journalism. Take everything with a grain of salt. Listen to both sides. A perfect society doesn't exist.
Comment by Uptheriver — September 18, 2009 @ 10:23 am
#35 Other John Thanks for the great post. We can disagree on many things, but we have to respect our Leaders as we are the ones who put them there. Therrefore we disrespect our right to vote and form of Gov't when we disrespect our Leaders.
None of us are always right. None of us have access to complete or perfect information, or even the same information that our Leaders may have, therefore we have to give a huge amount of respect to those elected to make decisions.
We must depend on our press and our system to keep our Leaders open and honest and making the best possible decisions for our Country. When we have doubts or believe they are going in a wrong direction, then we need speak up, but in a respectful manner.
May our Leaders always place the welfare of our Nation above politics, majority and minority interest, and personal interests. We elect them to represent the interests of all and to make decisions that correct wrongs and even when it against the interest of the majority in order to better our Nation. If they disrespect our trust, then we will vote against them the next time around. Until then, we let them know our thoughts and desires and hope that they can wisely weed through the chafe and come to wise conclusions.
Comment by Richard — September 18, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Uptheriver,no a perfect society doesn't exist, but it is my humble opinion that the rantings of the afore mentioned folks only serve to drive us further from that perfection not closer to it. I listen to all sides and most of the time I find the answer somewhere towards the middle. There is too much hate, not enough truth, and way too much I am right and you are wrong. People who take the ball and run with it, even though they may be running the wrong way only succeed in scoring points for the other team.
Comment by Randy M. — September 18, 2009 @ 11:33 am
@Bud #33: But I find it interesting that at this point in time, the call goes out for more civil discourse. Having endured years of BUSH lied,Cheney's corrupt, there's GOP family values for you, taxcuts for the rich...etc etc. and other deep, thought provoking analysis, NOW IS THE TIME for the peanut gallery to tone it down.
I take great exception, Bud, to the notion that I am just now coming to the church of civility. I've been writing since at least 2001 that we need to set aside the shrill partisan tone of our disagreements while still debating the substance of our differences. As proof, I offer a brief excerpt from a column I published on Oct. 5, 2001. This is, I'll have you note, before ANYONE said "Bush lied."
If what you read below sounds much different than what I'm saying now, you can nail me up for hypocrisy. Otherwise, I don't want to hear another word about how the call is just now coming from this corner for civil discourse.
The missile defense shield, Medicare, Social Security, the economy: All these issues remain important, aside from any ramifications from the attack. We shouldn't abandon rational debate simply to avoid the appearance of disunity.
But something good might come out of all this. Before Sept. 11, the tenor of debate was harsh and divisive. Opponents were accused of lacking integrity. Accusers questioned others' ideas, their values, their intelligence and their sincerity.
Maybe that can change now. Maybe, as we begin to disagree again, we can remember the feeling of togetherness we all felt on that dreadful Tuesday. Maybe we can learn to exchange ideas, debate positions and come to conclusions with that togetherness in mind.
We should not abdicate the right to disagree. It is what makes us Americans.
But as we disagree, let's remember that we are all Americans, and that we all want the best for this nation, even if we have entirely different ideas about what that might be.
We are all Americans, and we all want what is best for this nation. If that were the guiding mantra of the health care debate, and any other debate in this great nation, it would go far more smoothly.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 18, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Dan,
I don't know what to say...my call is not for civil discourse, or shrillness or whatever terms you wish to assign. I am saying I find it troubling that as the left is getting its agenda rejected by the American people because of poor legislative techniques, the rookie led Obama administration and poor leadership by Reid, Pelosi and Obama- the call goes out for civility.
Do you really believe that jamming through legislation by an August deadline for massive comprehensive medical care/insurance reform was in the nation's best interests? I don't and apparently a majority feel the same.
Comment by BUD — September 19, 2009 @ 6:58 am
My two cents worth (and that's all it's probably worth)...
I sit back and remember the kinds of discussions that I used to hear as a kid back in the late 50's and 60's. People with different perspectives actually talked to each other, not at each other. They were real and decent discussions such that at the end of them, those people went out to dinner, played golf or engaged in any other kind of social activity.
People actually communicated. I think with the advance of the electronic media (web pages, twitter, texting, email and the host of other non-verbal communications methods) we've lost our ability to sit either beside or across from someone and talk to them. The electronic mask has made it much easier to put a caustic face on a situation rather than a human face. This electronic media has given an outlet to millions of people who before now have had little or no method by which to communicate their feelings or ideas.
I think the media outlets have certainly picked up on that and have found ways to hype up the frenzie by having people of extreme points of view stir the pot even more (Olberman, Hannity and the likes). However, I think their motives are more financially based than ideology based. If stirring the pot makes them money, they will do it and continue.
Further, I think we've all (me included) become much more "in your face, it's all about me" about lots of things. I think if my parents were still alive today, I would have received quite a few "stern talking to's" about my delivery. My mother, a very tenacious and determined woman, was not afraid to enter into a discussion with anyone about any topic. She was more than glad to go toe to toe in discussion that were very sensitive. Back in her day, the discussion circled around the issue of integration of schools. Being as hugely conservative as she was, she was totally against it and stood firmly on her beliefs; however, she could communciate those beliefs without the vitrol that we see today.
Today...I don't think there are things on report cards called "Conduct" whereby you received a grade for the way you behave. We've not taught a generation how to be respectful of themselves not to mention being respectful of each other.
I find when I'm face to face with a person, I can still convey my feelings about an issue in a very calm manner and still go have a drink afterwards. We are all different in some form or fashion and we all have opinions. Communicating in a civil manner both on the left and the right is the only way we'll be able to find common ground to move (hopefully) forward and not regress.
Comment by Will — September 19, 2009 @ 9:09 am
Bud, this call for civility and the health care reform debate are completely unrelated. The point of digging up that 2001 column was to show that this is not a notion I just came to. I've been worried about the tone of political debate for a very long time. More to the point, the tone of debate on this blog had gotten out of hand - again, which has nothing to do with health care reform.
But I guess it is a sign of how far things have deteriorated that a call for civility cannot even be accepted without suspicion or questioned motives.
It's depressing.
But I still hold out that some hope that Americans can learn to exchange ideas and debate positions without questioning their political opponents' integrity, motives or sincerity. We're an awful long way from there. But one thing we can do at The RT is at least enforce a minimum level of civility and respect here.
And that's what we're going to do.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 19, 2009 @ 10:06 am
@42: My two cents (adjusted for inflation) is that there was a movement to jump on the momentum and get a bill done. Congress has done this before, not a big deal. But since there is so much money involved those who have the greatest financial stake (most $$$ to lose) and those who are contrary just for the sake of being so (Dick Armey, freedomworks, etc.) all colluded to muddy the waters of an already unsettled issue. They organized and encouraged a coarseness at summer town halls that intimidated and stifled real debate by throwing up the most scary rumors of what they thought this reform would mean. And they ought to be ashamed.
This is what I find repugnant about opposition to health care reform. Clouding this issue with all this crap about death panels and worrying about illegal immigrants when no substantial issue there exists. All this clamoring over false claims has spun into a big anti-Obama movement and has caused many to lose sight of the real threats to our nation.
America is not -- I repeat in the strongest terms, not -- rejecting health care reform. You are simply wrong about this.
In my last job I got raises five years straight and lost income each year because health care costs far outstripped that increase in salary. That is happening all over the country. Families are having to make cost-cutting decisions -- be it less coverage or no coverage -- and many are gambling that they won't have a catastrophic medical situation arise.
And those who lose jobs face steeper costs if they take over COBRA coverage. If they are fortunate enough to find work, it is often for less pay and carried fewer health care options than they had.
Yes, America does want reform. And we are going to get it because we have no choice. The Republicans can either get on board and make compromises -- Democrats, too! -- or wait a few more years when the bad options will be worse than today.
Comment by Saintbridge — September 19, 2009 @ 10:27 am
I am gonna make out on this new level of civility as I am capable of posting some of the dumber things found here.
And if it means universal condemnation of Al Gore's gutteral rant " he betrayed this nation, he played on our fears", the worst (or best) example of what is being talked about here, great.
Comment by waynep — September 19, 2009 @ 10:54 am
WayneP...
Fear is a great motivator and the Bush Administration played it like a Stradivarius violine.
Comment by Will — September 19, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
I too I applaud this move because at times it gets down right hateful. I am from the left and some of my best friends are from the right. But I think the lessen of Hurricane Katrina for me was we have been down 12 times to the Gulf Coast) it does not matter if you are from the right or left. Thanks to The Roanoke Times we started blog. So yes someone needs to mind the store.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 13, 2009 @ 3:14 pm