For Once, I Agree With The New Republic

Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic is probably best-known to non-subscribers for his 2003 article in which he proudly declared "I hate President George W. Bush." Now, hold on. That's not what I agree with. Recently, Chait was called to account for his bluntness by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.

Chait takes issue with Gerson because he thinks Gerson's article was another squishy defense of civility in politics. Now that's where I agree with Chait. Aside from the fact that Gerson was a complete sycophant for Bush as the size of government and the deficit grew by leaps and bounds, Gerson (then and now) acted as if liberal contempt for Bush were completely deranged. Well, it was often over-the-top and frequently downright nasty, but unlike Gerson's assertion, it was certainly not inexplicable. Bush quite clearly offended liberal and leftist Democrats in much the same way Barack Obama clearly offends conservative and rightist Republicans.

As someone once said, "politics isn't beanbag." And it isn't a meeting of The Society of Friends either. When that purplish dinosaur Barney starts writing a political blog, we can expect saccharine civility. Both Bush and Obama are polarizing political figures. Many a true word is said in jest, and many a nasty word is said in anger. Those of us on the blogs are usually writing about some very recent and very contentious issue, and when those issues revolve around major political figures, it's not to be unexpected that we are going to be very pointed in both our criticism and language concerning those same political figures. And unlike the cool and reserved atmosphere of textbooks discussing the issues years later, an occasional ad hominem attack on our perceived enemies is going to slip out.

Although I think the conservative camp has done a better job of holding down the obscenities and insubstantial personal attacks, our skirts are not entirely clean, nor would I expect them to be. Likewise, I think that Bush did a far better job of handling criticism than does Obama. But I expect that my liberal friends would strongly disagree with me, and probably not in the most polite of terms. So what? I'm very angry about where the Obama administration and the Democratic Party are leading us. And that occasionally leads me into some intemperate language. But how I was required to act toward my opposition in a courtroom is quite different from how I am free (and likely) to behave on a political blog.

Gerson attacked Harry Reid for calling Bush a loser and a liar. He attacked Al Gore for calling Bush a moral coward. He excoriated antiwar protesters for comparing Bush to Hitler. Chait probably agrees with them, but his comments are reserved for Gerson's finding anything unusual about that. Gerson is shocked, shocked, to hear such uncivil rhetoric from the other side. Well, the First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech (all speech is offensive to someone). If the left becomes so civil that it ceases to use such exaggerated claims, that dampens my freedom to call Obama a loser, liar and moral coward (although I will usually back it up with a fact or two), or compare him to Stalin (which I have never done). Each time a bigtime politician makes a statement like that, are we expected to self-censor and follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules? So for entirely different reasons, I agree with Chait. Let it all hang out, and be ready to defend your position, only this time with facts and evidence, not simply more venom.

Gerson got very colorful about halfway through his pro-civility screed. "Questioning the legitimacy of a democratic outcome; abusing demeaning and attempting to silence one's opponents--is a sign of democratic decline. From the late Roman republic to Weimar Germany, these attitudes have been the prelude to thuggery. Thugs can come with clubs, with bullhorns, with Internet access." Chait challenges Gerson on this point saying: "And I simply don't know what to make of Gerson's conflation of attitudes expressed via bullhorn and the internet, on the one hand, with those expressed via 'clubs.'" Nor do I. Gerson misses the important fact that both sides use verbal "attitudes" to express their anger, but so far, the only clubs that have been used have been the bully boys of the SEIU against Obama opponents and Black Panther "poll-watchers" in Philadelphia. It also feeds into the left's faux indignation about anti-Obama words leading to violence (but only on the right, of course).

Chait has trouble with Gerson's columns for very logical reasons (even if I don't necessarily agree with them). Says Chait: "The problem--and this is the whole problem with the civility obsession--is that it's hard to formulate a coherent set of standards. Gerson thinks Al Franken belongs outside the realm of of acceptable discourse. On the other hand, he thinks Rush Limbaugh . . . belongs within that acceptable discourse." It's that classic question--quis custodiet ipsos custodes "who will guard the guardians?"

From an historical perspective, the past decade has been relatively mild. Check out what Adams and Jefferson supporters had to say about each other. Check out what Jackson and J. Q. Adams supporters had to say about each other. Take a close look at what Lincoln opponents had to say about him. Ditto FDR supporters versus every other candidate's supporters. More of the same for Reagan supporters and opponents. And just to get Gerson, a newspaper columnist, back into the world of reality, nearly all those attacks were printed in the newspapers and political tracts, without the benefit of bullhorns or the internet. Somehow, we survived it all.

To prove his point, Gerson very civilly includes in his latest column the following words: "I don't hate President Obama." Well, good for him. Let me conclude this article with my own take on the subject: I hate Barack Obama. Did I do good, Mr. Chait?