Centerfield

I think he hit it on the head, no-one changes the channel when the 'news' is covering the runaway bride...

I don't know, politics is, and has always been, a blood sport. After reading numerous volumes of early American politics, I'm fairly convinced that the "tone" today is in some ways more substantive then it was in say 1800 (a pretty nasty election year).

Doesn’t make it right… but I don’t think it’s much worse, other then the fact that more people see it unfold live in TV instead of reading it in a pamphlet.

All too true.

I more detected a smackdown of the emptyheaded TV audience and of "he said she said" swiftboating. But then I'm not a US centrist, I'm a centrist.

More of us can speak up when someone is resorting to personal attack or hatred.
I regularly comment on blogs to redirect character assassination back to asking what is the actual difference of opinion.

I think people resort to nastiness when they do not have the talent or skill to make their point with reason.

The opportunity for the Centrist community is to help elect leaders who set an example of mutual respect and collaboration.

What's the difference between a "centrist" and a "US centrist?"

No doubt that early American politics was, in general, as vitriolic as todays, but the difference today is the vitriol isn't just directed at politicians but at anyone with an opinion different from one's own. Obviously, the growth of the internet has given people license to say what they please and the culture encouraged full "self-expression" and "catharsis" with little consideration of the consequences. I'm sure the person that made that comment about visiting the violence on the children didn't mean it literally, but, with no internal monitor simply got carried away with his or her passion.

I don't think it's about politics really. I agree with Brown, it's amazing how mean the world has become in general. I hate to keep harping on it, but look at sports--look how people get liquored up and yell the most vile things at players or opposing fans. It's a culture in which the cult of the individual has taken precedence over civility or simple decency in a lot of cases. Plus, I think a lot of people look at politicians or media as not really being people--they are just images. I find it hard to believe that someone would say these kinds of things in person--for one thing, they might get beaten up.

With respect to the media specifically, I think one problem is that the public assumes that they have an agenda. We have been bombarded with the idea--from both right and left--that the media is biased and is advancing a program so that now we see statements, not simply as expressions of opinion (mistaken or otherwise) but as part of a broader agenda to advance a particular (liberal or conservative) agenda.

I don't know if the left is worse than the right with respect to name calling generally, but there seems to be an increasing paranoia on parts of the left towards all institutions. Some of it undoubtedly comes because of the presence of conservative talk radio. And parts of the left seem increasingly unwilling to look at people as individuals as opposed to representatives of some particular group. For example, for those who don't like US policy toward Israel, I detect an acceptance of blaming "the Jews." Perhaps my own bit of paranoia.

Sorry for going on so long, but this kind of stuff really bothers me and, still considering myself somehat on the liberal side, it bothers me more when this stuff comes from the left.

Brown makes some excellent points, but I'm not convinced the world has "become" increasingly intolerant. Let's face it, we are white washing history if we truly buy into that belief.

Look beyond our own history...the Catholic Church certainly doesn't win points in the tolerance department during the Inquisition. Look at the French Revolution--hardly a time in which one would want to have a thought outside of the mainstream. Look at the religious struggles in England and Scotland, not to even mention Ireland. In our own history, look at the Salem witch trials, previous presidential races, even the physical beat down that occured on Capitol Hill over the issue of slavery. Intolerance, lies, and the like are nothing new to mankind at all. Yes, it's easier to mask one's true identity, but hate speech has been plastered with fliers, cross burnings, and the like before without one knowing the source.

It's the 24-7 news cycle that convinces us it is so much worse...we just never get a break from it. But, I guess if I had to vote, I'd rather see people yelling at each other on cable (I don't watch btw) than hearing that they had strung someone up in Salem because of some concocted story of witchcraft.

What's the difference between a "centrist" and a "US centrist?"

I tend to assume that such commenets signify that US centrists are really knuckle-draggers because we don't acknowledge the force of the insight of global progressives who know that war is always wrong, corporations are evil, and the environment must be 100% protected by any means necessary.

US centrists are capitalist war mongers, global centrists are socialist peace-lovers.

Bingo, Brian!

I'm young (mid-twenties), but even at my young age, I do think there is more meanness and crassness than before. Some of the things that come out of my mouth shock me -- have you no decency, Adam! Abel's argument is the Jon Stewart argument everytime any conservative claims the cultural is coarsening.

It's true that the fifties were racist and homophobic but society did seem more polite and decent -- within mainstream society at least. To me it's not an either/or situation. It's great that we're less racist, sexist, and homophobic but that should not be an excuse to become lazy, mean, and foul-mouthed hedonists. ;)

I think amba at ambivablog said society needed the best blend of the fifties and sixties, and I agree.

To use a concrete illustration, Brian likes to use a fair amount of scatology from time to time. I find it funny and I watch southpark, but I always wonder, is this good for me? Is this good for society? I dunno. I doubt forty years ago Brian would feel so free to discuss lube, etc. It's like chocolate cake; it tastes good, but it probably isn't good for us. This is not to indict Brian, but just to illustrate how culture has changed.

It's not about being repressed or prudish, it's more about cultivating our "higher" nature than our lower one. More time listening to Bach, less to Southpark.

ROTFLMAO! Wiping away hysterical tears! Oh, that's OK Adam. I don't mind being accused of such things, since I don't acknowledge them as meriting concern as some sort of crime. Or even legitmate moral faux pas. Now if I were forcing people to visit here and read my posts....

Compared to the average bear, I am VERY hard to offend. The more easily one is offended, the more power one grants to the superficial component of others words, as opposed to the substance of meaning that another may be trying to convey.

From a very young age I was always complexed by the notion that that there were things one shouldn't talk about or particular words one shouldn't use, which left we wondering what such words were for, and whether people really were especially committed to understanding human life on Earth.

It's not about being repressed or prudish, it's more about cultivating our "higher" nature than our lower one. More time listening to Bach, less to Southpark.

I find the notion that I'd be better off listening to Bach than watching South Park both laughable and unsupportable, not to mention one of Pat's most despised sins, paternalistic. Essentially, you are declaring that your conception of cultivating one's higher nature is right, while mine is misguided. See, I find the impulse to dictate what other people should enjoy to be one that can move fairly quickly to the development of humans most BASE tendencies. I always appreciate a kind invitation to entertain another's views on such matters, but not dictation.

It's like chocolate cake; it tastes good, but it probably isn't good for us.

Well, there ya go again, privileging one conception of good. I'm pretty happy letting some people live based on the notion that it's "better" to eat things that aren't very enjoyable and to live as an ascetic, eating yogurt and whole grain and meditating in the shade, so as to live to be 130. But hey, it's not for me.

And since you are so down with the Buddha, think a bit on this. My yard holds a small but wonderful hillside rock garden. At the top of the stairs winding through it sits a statue of the young, serene, thin, meditating buddha. At the bottom stands a fat happy rejoicing buddha. So if you ever visit my house, you'll find that it takes energy to reach that diligently meditating thin buddha, but an easy stroll down the stairs brings you to the fat happy buddha. The older and presumedly wiser buddha is fat and happy. Do you see no message in this? The wise old buddha is an implicit endorsement of chocolate cake...

The weirdest part? I didn't construct the garden this way on purpose. I only had the young meditating buddha placed at the top. My sister later gave me the fat happy buddha as a gift, and I didn't even like it at first. But eventually I was drawn to placing it at the bottom of the stairs, just because it seemed a nice encouragement to go up the stairs. Then the garden eventually revealed this story to me.

I'm not making this up! Seriously. Buy a fat happy old Buddha statue, and live with it for awhile and tell me it doesn't speak to you.

Poor earnest Adam, always stepping in it so innocently. Who would have guessed you were young? Anyway...

Wingnut vitriol aside, another aspect of the article relates to something I was just thinking about last night, the democracy of television (and media in general). Criticism of the media often has an underlying notion of some separation between the media and the rest of us. It's absolutely true, in my opinion, that the media give us, collectively, what we ask for.

The media is not obsessed with anything but the dollars that come with viewership. If people wanted the real or important news, they would surely get it.

Now we could get into whose determination of "real" or "important" is the right one. But let's face it, some stuff is just plain stupid and unimportant. Other stuff is obviously very important and impacting. There's other stuff in the middle that we can argue about, but that's another discussion.

I was just thinking about last night, the democracy of television (and media in general). Criticism of the media often has an underlying notion of some separation between the media and the rest of us. It's absolutely true, in my opinion, that the media give us, collectively, what we ask for.

The media is not obsessed with anything but the dollars that come with viewership. If people wanted the real or important news, they would surely get it.

Maybe, but there's a bit of a market failure in there, which I think but am not sure is called a winner-take-all market. In TV, you have everyone competing for the biggest most lucrative markets, and the niche markets are either not served or are underserved. If you are in the niche market of people who wants real news and lots of facts and data, you're largely SOL as far as TV is concerned. Or maybe it's that you have to think of the market as a whole as "combined media," and think of TV as almost exclusively serving only the mass market, while other forms of media are the only ones that can serve niche markets.

That's why I purposely used the word "collectively." There a certainly underserved smaller segments of viewers, but there is always C-Span.

Oh, dude. C-Span? Who could love C-Span?

If centrists indeed love C-Span, this may be a fact best kept to ourselves if we want to grow. It's the political equivalent of approaching a girl in a bar wearing your starfleet uniform and telling her how much you enjoy picking your nose.

Have you been following me?

Just call me "Pat, the anti-paternalist"!

I'm not a South Park fan, but I do enjoy Married, With Children...

Brian... what if the girl is painted green and has faux antennae coming out of her head? That approach might win with her...

On a serious note, I agree with all who said this is nothing all that new. I do think the divisions in Congress itself are more visible, most reports are that there is indeed less collegiality among the members than in recent history. One of the things that generally keeps me calm in all these political debates is the realization that we've survived like this for a long, long time, so odds are that everything will be ok.

When I graduated from law school, I had a complimentary, 1-year membership in the American Bar Association. The first issue of their magazine I received had a column from the president of the ABA. He was in his 60s at the time (this was 1993). His column stated that racism in this country was worse now (the early 90s) then ever before in his life time. Given that his life time included Jim Crow, pre-Brown education, Bull Connor and George Wallace's Alabama, and numerous lynchings, I decided that I would never be a member of any organization which could elect as its leader someone sufficiently moronic as to make that statement. We still have plenty of problems with race and racism in this country. But it is much, much better now than it was throughout most of the last century. Alarmism does not help us solve real problems.

One of the things that generally keeps me calm in all these political debates is the realization that we've survived like this for a long, long time, so odds are that everything will be ok.

Pat, that's sort of my argument for tolerating activism, or at least related. :-)

I decided that I would never be a member of any organization which could elect as its leader someone sufficiently moronic as to make that statement. We still have plenty of problems with race and racism in this country. But it is much, much better now than it was throughout most of the last century.

That sort of thing has happened to me before, when you are eager on a new enterprise and then you find out you can't even get through the first day without having to immediately lower your expectations because your assumption that "things would be different" here turned out to be another case of hope triumphing for just a moment over experience.

I am often troubled by people who make such arguments that suggest an inability to take a small step back and look at where we are in the context of where we came from. It always strikes me as so overwrought and fundamentally wrong-headed when someone feels like the success of getting people to acknowledge their issues relies upon denial of any sort of rational acknowledgement of actual progress. Those are the bad days.

Mind you, as a good Republican I didn't start out with a very high opinion of the ABA at that time, anyway... They long ago transformed from a professional association to one of the nattering nabobs of negativism...