Playing Nice in the Political Sandbox

By now, the informed world is familiar with the Hardball smackdown/sandbagging (choose your term based upon which side of the political fence you graze) featuring conservative pundit Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards. Video clips abound in the blogosphere, in case you’ve been under a rock or, as we Florida teachers have been, waiting less and less patiently for Tallahassee to release those blasted school grades.

Lessons from the Coulter/Edwards encounter abound, and I wouldn’t consider myself a very good teacher unless I pointed some of them out. First off, let’s get one main definition out of the way:

de·bate [di-beyt] –noun

Note that the archaic definition of the word seems lately to be the functioning definition of the word in the public arena. “Debate”–or what poses for it–in mass media mostly consists of talking heads screaming soundbites at each other, or in the case of the blogosphere, hurling value judgment grenades at the other side. Winner has the most volume or greatest lack of civility. I can’t say the Coulter/Edwards exchange represents the nadir of current public discourse, but it’s a good example to dissect. Here we go:

• Ann Coulter has the First Amendment right to say whatever she feels about Mr. Edwards unless it is slanderous or libelous. Tasteless speech is well within Constitutional bounds.
• Elizabeth Edwards has the right to make a phone call to a public newsmagazine and voice her opinion as well. The fact that she isn’t John Edwards does not diminish her position.
• As well-informed as you may be, you cannot change the opinions of those who disagree with you by acting like a petulant teenager. Huffing and eye-rolling don’t work for my students, so why, if you are a college-educated adult with a national platform, would you assume they work for you?
• Talking over your opponent speaks volumes about you, but nothing legitimate about your position (this would apply to Mr. Begala, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Colmes, Ms. Coulter, Mr. Hannity, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Matthews, Mr. O’Reilly, and many others employed on the air).
• Bloggers, and the folks who leave comments at HuffPo, the NYT, WaPo, and the like, remember Godwin’s Law: once you start tossing out “Nazi” and “Hitler” to describe your opponent, you lose the debate.
• Elizabeth Edwards is dead on: the personal attacks squelch meaningful discussion of the issues. I don’t care whether you hate Bill/George/Hillary/Rudy/Mitt/John E./Barack/John McC. with an unmitigated fiery passion or not. The name calling isn’t getting us anywhere but right back in the sandbox, throwing handfuls at the kid you think took your shovel.

Some real debate, if you would, peeps. What do you plan to do for the country? What ideas do you have to mend our torn social fabric? To improve access to quality education for all young people and develop a sane plan with which to do it? To create a health care system that truly improves the health of the nation? To reduce government waste by restricting senseless earmarks? To wrestle with knotty problems of race and class without resorting to tired rhetoric that says nothing new and gets nothing accomplished? To dignify the worth of all American voters during the next reapportionment by refusing to gerrymander district boundaries? To develop a sensible immigration policy that eliminates craziness (byzantine rules for legal immigrants that suck up tens of thousands of dollars in fees and months, if not years, in paperwork) and deals firmly and fairly with illegals (for one, no more wet foot/dry foot stupidity)? To honor our soldiers’ sacrifices and bring them home safely, and soon?

Display some home training, please. Listen, think, and then speak. I’m anxious to hear your courteous, well-considered responses.

But I won’t be holding my breath.