In defense of civility

[x-g.o.p.er]

I write this post after reading hundreds of posts, some sympathetic, some indifferent, and many gleeful, over the death of Ronald Reagan.

I can understand taking joy over the defeat of a political opponent. I, almost as much as anyone who posts on this board, wishes in earnest for the defeat of George W. Bush in November. His policies are wrong, misguided, and dangerous, and we need a change for the good of the country. I thought that by joining the Democratic Party I was joining together with fellow Americans who strongly believe in what is good and just and right. I still do believe that, but my naivete is gone. I guess you could say the honeymoon is over.

What I have seen on this board has shocked me, quite frankly. It is this type of vitriol and venom that has been focused on Reagan's death that caused me to disavow the Republican Party. Their overt ugliness was something that shocked me as an American, embarrassed me as a (former) Republican, and sickened me as a compassionate human being.

This Reagan hatred has given me many of those similar feelings, and DU'ers on other posts have asked if a Democratic president were to die, would the right wing be as nasty? I have really thought about that question, and my answer is, unfortunately, yes.

I remember watching Chris Matthews yesterday and he was relaying an anecdotal story about him chatting with Reagan when Matthews' old office in the Capitol building was being used as the green room for Reagan's SOTU address.

"This is where we conspire to defeat you," Matthews told Reagan.

"Not after 6:00", chuckled Reagan.

You see, after 6:00, they were all Americans again, wanting the best for their country, political differences aside.

This has made me realize that it seems the days of political civility and honest disagreement are gone forever. It's become a fuck 'em all and take no prisoners environment, and we are all the worse off for it.

Go ahead and flame me, it seems that is the natural reaction for many.

I will abstain from the vitriol, for I feel that in the end, it accomplishes nothing, except for maybe helping to exorcise some personal demons.

Civility, I fear, is dead. Long live civility.

[DenverDem]

1. Where did the end of civility begin?

the raygun administration.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Very well said! Thank you x-g.o.per...

Long live civility! :thumbsup:

[UTUSN]

3. Let's Start with the Civiility of LIMBOsevic, HANNITY,and O'REILLY

THEN, let's have a lecture about US Dems.

[mike_c]

8. so let's behave like them...?

Thank you, but no. I would hope that we can do better. Think about it-- it's far more effective and damaging to destroy your opponent politely and intelligently than with bluster and blind vitriol. The true measure of an erudite opposition is the ability to skewer with subtlety, or at least with class. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly lack that ability. Worse for them, IMO.

[UTUSN]

28. Neh, The Wingnut (faux) Argument Is HYPOCRISY of Us

How we LACK COMPASSION for ASSHOLES. By the bye, Shrub calls all his staff FUCKING ASSHOLES.

[RapidCreek]

113. See post #111

And in answer to your post. No is isn't. It's very effective to shun the wicked...to explain that wickedness, to call it and them what they are, and make effusively clear to those who might follow them down the path of evil...that they and the methods they contemplate shall not be accepted, ignored or forgotten...EVER.

RC

[x-g.o.p.er]

9. I'm not blaming us Dems for starting it...

And I don't condone that bile that comes out of the mouths of the three "paragons of conservative virtue", as it were.

This isn't a lecture, it's a lament. My intent was not to lecture, it was to hopefully appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."

Sorry if it came off that way.

[UTUSN]

32. Eh, YOU Never Come Off in Any Negative Way

But we Dems, who were never-GOPers, need to FIGHT more.

[Leprechan29]

29. Why don't we start it

An endless cycle cannot be ended unless one party stops acting like a little child, and puts aside the conflict for two seconds in the interest of the big picture. Not to mention, vitriol only looks bad if it is from one side of an ideology.

[UTUSN]

37. Well, We Dems Have ALWAYS Been "Noble"

while the wingnuts have been REAMING us. You are probably too YOUNG to remember NOBLE Stevenson, NOBLE Humphrey, NOBLE Mondale, NOBLE Dukakis, NOBLE Gore. The "endless cycle" started with us, not with them. How come you don't see the "vitriol" from the wingnut side-----------EHHHHHHH??????????

[Leprechan29]

39. I do see the vitriol

Very vividly. I know from the Republicans that I deal with in everyday life, I know how they can attack a person relentlessly for one aspect of their character, whether they can control it or not. But more and more I also see it from Democrats that I am around, who will take potshots at opposition for many of the same reasons. All I am saying is that we should not take the low road just because it has been paved by Republicans.

[never cry wolf]

96. Damn nice post!

All I am saying is that we should not take the low road just because it has been paved by Republicans.

There are numerous nuggets of wisdom on this board, damn I love it!

[Gore1FL]

69. Thats what RWNs said about torturing people

Saddam was worse. Terrorsit do it too....

That excuse was stupid for them. Frankly, it has no more intelligence when applied to flaming dead men.

[mike_c]

4. no flames here....

I think you are entirely correct. Were you around DU during the Democratic primaries frenzy?

[x-g.o.p.er]

13. I was....

but being the new kid on the block I read a lot, picked my candidate, and rarely spoke up.

I supported Edwards in the primaries, just for full disclosure.

[Syrinx]

5. Amen, x. I agree a hundred percent

Hope you don't mind me calling you x. :)

[rumguy]

6. His death should not be a cause for celebration

In fact, I don't understand how it could be.

He's been in a near vegetative state for awhile now.

He's been out of power for a long time. The right wing lives on without him.

Nothing was accomplished. Nothing was achieved.

All we did was mock our own shared humanity.

That being said, it's more than fair to go back and look at the policy legacy he leaves us.

[ElectroPrincess]

7. Yes, plenty of room, after we WIN this Presidential Election

No, there's no place for weakness and the right wing views compromise and demonstrations of civility as revealing the Democratics soft-underbelly for right wing radicals to "feast" on.

Nope, undaunted civility is the right wingers' wet dream: That somehow the Democrats will feel guilty and get all slobery, apologetic, employ hankies, hugs and ping tutus. Nope, I won't fall for that ploy again.

BTW IMO Chris Mathews is a hyperactive corporate media tool. I put little crediblity in his ever changing perspectives.

[x-g.o.p.er]

Your "hyperactive media tool" was the chief of staff

for Tip O'Neil, one of the most decent men that ever graced the Democratic party. I think if a guy who was as partisan as Matthews was in trying to defeat Reagan and his policies can show some civility in the man's passing, I don't understand why it's so difficult for others.

That's what I'm trying to understand, and it's one of the things that bothered me about the Republicans when I left that party.

Why all the hatred? What the hell ever happened to political discourse, followed by everyone going out and having a beer?

[Selwynn]

17. What do we win if we're just like them?

It would be a very hollow victory for me. I'd rather lose and be right than win and be wrong, but I'm still holding out for the win and be right option.

[WillyT]

43. Exactly !!! - Two Sides Of A Penny Gone Bad !!!

Red - Blue

Catholic - Protestant

Isreali - Palestinian

Tutsi - Hutu

"Nobodies right, when everybodies wrong..."

:shrug:

[RapidCreek]

115. That's bullshit.

Everyone isn't wrong. See post #111

RC

[MikeG]

10. They lost the right to civility when they didn't accept defeat in 1992.

They had their chance. Now we're going to obliterate them.
And if rejoicing at the passing of their patron saint is a start, then that's where it starts.

[mark11727]

15. Just remembered a line from a thread in Salon a couple of years ago...

... we'll get over the election of 2000 when the GOP gets over the election of 1992.

[Burma Jones]

11. Democrats were indeed the Loyal Opposition in Reagan's Terms

Lee Atwater, the filthy slimy pig boy of Bush the Elder, really started the present incivility going. He dies of a brain tumor, now that's karma. When Clinton was elected, Rush Limbaugh and his "children" started spewing the hate-filled rhetoric. Newt Gingrich fanned the flames.

The Republicans blame the whole thing on the Bork and Scalia's lap dog, Thomas' Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

And nobody ever went broke appealing to our basest instincts.

[Goldmund]

12. There are two different phenomena

One is rejoycing at someone's death, which I've seen some of here on DU, but not that much. Not "systemic". Only "a few bad apples". But a totally different phenomenon is refusing to obey that biggest of the unwritten laws of Western civilization (it all started with Jesus), and that is that the dead should be worshipped. You know -- when someone dies, speak no ill. It's built into every aspect of our culture, even the counter-culture (for example, John Lennon, Jim Morrison, etc). That tenet isn't anything rational or reasonable, but we somehow have this knee-jerk reaction of "tasteless!!!" if an hour after a person's death we speak the same thing that we spoke an hour before.

Sorry, but Reagan was a horrible president and though he could maintain the nice-guy veneer within the walls of his fancy office, he sewed blood and poverty all over the world. It was true a week ago, and it will be true a week from now. Of course, he was a human being, and a powerless one at that; Reagan's death will do no good to anyone, and to be _happy_ about it is contemptible and petty. But I refuse to eulogise him. He was a horrible man.

[RapidCreek]

114. I agree...almost completely

I don't think being happy about the end of a life, the holder of whom was evil, is either petty or contemptible. It's quite natural really....and healthy. It is an eternal testament to the evil the dead man persecuted on his fellows and the resultant suffering they shall endure for years to come. One should not temper his or her feeling about the death of an evil person with phony civility....because the day they do, is the day they will begin to forget the origins of the pain and suffering that evil caused, is causing and will continue to cause for many years to come.

Check out post #111 if you'd like to understand my rational a bit more completely.

RC

[Selwynn]

14. Well said.

[evil_orange_cat]

16. he wasn't just "a political opponent"... he was evil (or a puppet for it)

this isn't just about politics for me, like say, the way I would feel if it was just about a disagreement over free market economics... Reagan was either a puppet for evil, or true evil himself. Regardless, his death is also a symbolic death of his policies. And that is cause for celebration.

[HEyHEY]

18. How dare you defend civility

It's scum like you that make this world a better place.

[Kanary]

19. You have a point, and I'd be more impressed if you were also

expressing the same distaste when a DUer gets cursed, blasted, and run out of town.

It seems that the only ire expressed is about those who have the gall to post something negative about Reagan. Yet, day after day, year after year, there are many posts containing even obscenities against fellow DUers, and nobody seems to think a thing of it.

It leaves me with the impression that what is really upsetting to some people is IMAGE. As long as we "look civil" it's OK, to trash each other -- just leave the public figures out of it, because that reflects badly.

Respect and common courtesy begin at home.

Kanary

[HEyHEY]

22. True....

But sometimes it just feels good to call someone a fuckhead.

Seriously though, the admin have tried forever to curb the problem of DUer on DUer crudeness. Some people just don't get it, and hey, sometimes I am guilty of it too.

[x-g.o.p.er]

23. I agree 100%

But there haven't been umpteen million threads ripping an individual DU'er.

Common respect and civility begin with us, here on DU.

And since you brought it up, I don't understand (I mean, I really don't understand, because I'm still fairly new) why some Democrats can't seem to stand the DLC. Weren't both Clinton and Gore members of the DLC?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I just noticed a big schism with some as it relates to the DLC.

[Kanary]

52. It doesn't TAKE umpteen million attacks to HURT an individual!

You see, that's what gives me the impression that you are more concerned about IMAGE than you are concerned about common courtesy, and respect for another human. I'm sure you know, if you were to really be honest with yourself, that humans are fragile, and can be hurt with thoughtless verbal violence. Yet, we excuse it, and then get so upset about anger expressed towards a man who not only hurt, but is responsible for the deaths of at least THOUSANDS of people.

I'm simply trying to get some here to put this in perspective, and realize that common courtesy and respect begin at home.

I don't know what post you were reading, but it wasn't ME who brought up the DLC. That's another topic for another time. And, I suspect that if you were willing to really listen to what others had to say, you'd understand WHY some don't like the DLC. But, that is not the subject I'm interested in right now.

What I'm looking for from you now, since you express so much concern about being civil, is to speak up when you see another DUer being cursed, attacked, and humiliated. You see, we all are in this together.

Kanary

[Career Prole]

20. From the introduction of Joe Conason's book "Big Lies",

some words I have taken to heart after having the ideals of myself, my family, and my friends dragged through the mud and spat upon for so many years while I waited fruitlessly for a sane voice from the right to say "Enough!"

The spiteful, malignant discourse that became so common during the Clinton era has done lasting damage to democratic participation and civility in our political system. Although as a matter of literary convenience I frequently refer to conservatives and Republicans, I certainly don't believe that every conservative or every Republican is responsible for the offenses discussed in these pages.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I also don't believe that my political adversaries are uniformly ‘no good,’ or un-American, or greedy, or bigoted, or stupid. I shouldn't have to say this, but I know from personal experience that generosity, compassion, and wisdom cross all partisan and ideological boundaries. … I would much prefer an atmosphere that encourages friendship rather than hatred among Americans, regardless of ideology and party.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much chance of that happy outcome until liberals learn to hit back hard. The classic American hero is the underdog who wins respect by fighting back against a bully. Sometimes the bully just limps away to nurse his wounds. Sometimes the bully wises up and mends his ways. Occasionally, the underdog and the bully become best friends.

But the underdog who dares to fight back is always better off.”

Maybe you should've "gone Democrat" back when we still thought rational discourse was possible. If you listened to Limbaugh, you helped make him possible.
I've said it several times over the past day and a half, I'll say it once more...I don't care if a nasty old man died. It means absolutely nothing to me.
Sorry if I've offended your sensibilities, but I'm taking Joe Conason's advice. I ain't layin' down for it anymore.

[x-g.o.p.er]

26. I'm not asking anyone to lie down and take it...

but you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I've made a lot more points with people in rationally explaining my dislike for Bush's policies, as opposed to bashing Bush.

[Career Prole]

40. Honey got us right-wing radio and FOXTV.

I'm out of the honey business.

[Senior citizen]

71. And you attract more flies

with shit than you do with honey. Who the hell wants to attract flies?

[alarcojon]

21. I certainly haven't danced on his grave

but this next week or so will bring some genuine mourning and a lot of political posturing. Those who try to capitalize politically on Reagan's passing are every bit as bad, in my opinion, as those who now openly celebrate. Even worse - those dancing on Reagan's grave are at least honest about it.

I join x-gop'er in mourning the end of civility. Unfortunately, the right wing has done far more to bring about that end than anyone else. Right now they are led by Bush the uniter-not-a-divider, but he is just following in a long, disgraceful tradition.

I will silently endure the nauseating tributes while quietly reminding myself of the horrible crimes committed by Ronald Reagan. And I will call Bush loudly on every sickening attempt to claim some of the Reagan legacy.

[Just Me]

24. Naw, civility is alive and breathing. A temporary cathartic event,...

,...occurred. ALL the pain and disappointment and feelings of abandonment and betrayal and rejection and heartache,....simply poured out.

Believe me,...it was a temporary "gutting" of human pain left by this man whose last name was "Reagan".

Always remember that the dead do not suffer as do the lives they leave behind.

[RoyGBiv]

25. No flames here...

I've avoided much direct commentary on this issue, but after waiting for most of the last two days for it to die down and seeing it only increase, I guess now is as good a time as any to weigh-in. I hope not to make it a habit.

I have been waiting impatiently for traffic to die down enough so that I can use the "ignore thread" feature again and have a field day ignoring each and every thread that has anything to do with Reagan. I understand the problem and do not blame the administrators of DU for it, but it is irritating that the only time I really seem to want to use this feature is when DU is so over-run with flame wars that such use has been disabled.

In any case, since becoming a regular participant in DU, the last two days have marked my lowest level of interest in the goings-on here. The night before Reagan died, someone posted a "heads-up" indicating that it was coming due to some information his news room had received, and he made a request for a civil attitude to prevail, which both gave me hope and instilled a sense of dread at what was coming. Within hours, his request was essentially refused and shortly after the official announcement, this forum had become a cesspool.

I quite frankly feel nothing for Reagan's death, nothing good, nothing bad, just plain nothing. I am, however, thoroughly annoyed with the fact that news of it and arguments over how to treat it have infected every online forum in which I participate, including a history group I help moderate that isn't supposed to deal with anything more recent than 100 years ago.

Your comments fit my feelings perfectly. There is no need to honor the man, imo, but neither is there any need to offer some of the vile commentary we've seen here. Trash his policies, his Presidency, even him as an individual all you like, but the "piss on his grave" comments and polls and whatnot are disgusting. Our party leaders and former leaders, including Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Mondale, Carter, etc. have this figured out much better than some of us have, but I know my wish that we might follow their example is a pointless one.

I lost a friend over something like this. Her teenage son, while visiting the place where William Tecumseh Sherman was buried, took the opportunity to urinate on his grave literally. I have no love for Sherman and in fact hold a dislike of him and some of his actions that exceeds anything I've ever felt for Reagan, but I was highly offended by this action. I assumed his mother would reprimand him for this. We were both active in historical preservation and had recently been involved in restoring a monument that had been damaged by vandalism. But, no, she was thrilled. Our friendship didn't end that day, but it was the beginning of that end. I no longer respected her as much as I once had. To take such glee in such petty acts is a mark of everything I hold in contempt. The "they do it too" or the "well, s/he deserved it" excuses simply don't work. It's not about what "they" do or whether the person whose memory is being desecrated deserved it. It's about the attitudes and maturity level of the people committing and finding joy in such desecration.

I'll go find my own flame suit now, but to those who ignite the torch, don't expect me to participate.

[Just Me]

31. I love your post,...

,...and I love your heart/spirit/mind.

All of which you articulated in a way that draws and inspires and impacts me.

Light to You!!!

[x-g.o.p.er]

33. Great post

Thanks for the contribution

[unkachuck]

48. I see nothing....

wrong with 'pissing on the grave' of someone who has willfully screwed you....

If Reagan (or Sherman) wanted our respect when they were dead, they should have earned while they were alive....

[Art_from_Ark]

65. William Tecumseh Sherman

destroyed countless homes and lives with his scorched earth policy in Georgia and was responsible for much of the genocide of the Western Indians. He deserves no respect.

[RoyGBiv]

66. Scorched Earth

Sherman had no scorched earth policy in Georgia.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Then what would you call his "March to the Sea"?

A Christmas party?

[RoyGBiv]

70. I'd call it warfare...

My favorite Georgia/Sherman story:

I was touring a Georgia plantation, listening to all the details about the plantation's history from the tour guide. She took great pride in pointing out how the original structure was so solid that it had lasted all these years, that Southern builders knew what they were doing and were an example to be followed.

A few minutes later she arrived at the point in her presentation in which she discussed the Civil War, particularly Sherman's campaign. She gave one of the best, mostly emotionally compelling presentations I've ever heard from a tour guide, mentioning the horrors the residents of the plantation went through when the house was burned to the foundation by Sherman's bummers.

I almost didn't have the heart to ask her how the original structures we'd just seen managed to survive being burned to the ground, but I found the heart. I never got an answer, and the tour ended quickly. A lot of the people on the tour with me thought I was a jerk. So be it.

Sherman expelled women and children from the South and sent them into homelessness; he failed to instill the proper discipline in some of his troops; he was in large part responsible for the carnage of Shiloh by not listening to his subordinates; he instituted policies as an army commander after the Civil War that resulted in numerous deaths among Native Americans. But he did not "burn" Georgia. He carried out a military campaign that, compared to similar campaigns carried out throughout the world, was quite mild.

No. He deserves no respect for this. But that has nothing to do with with the kind of personality it takes to take joy in literally pissing on the man's grave, which was done, btw, because the individual who did it was woefully ignorant of Sherman's true influence on history.

[Art_from_Ark]

72. Sherman did not level any Georgia towns

but he did burn numerous buildings, and he burned food that could have fed Georgia civilians:

"Confederate president Jefferson Davis had urged Georgians to undertake a scorched-earth policy of poisoning wells and burning fields, but civilians in the army's path had not done so. Sherman, however, burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months."

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-641

Since he did not destroy entire towns, it perhaps might not count as a scorched-earth policy in the strictest sense of the term, but for all practical purposes, it was.



At any rate, it was acts like these that caused generations of Southerners to hold "Yankees" in contempt. After that, Sherman moved out West, where he excelled in causing untold hardship for native populations.

To add insult to injury, the US government honored Sherman with a stamp after his death in 1891.

[Baltimoreboy]

73. In case you hadn't noticed

Food can be used for military forces OR civilians. Sherman was fighting a war. He burned that which could be used by the states in REBELLION.

The South started the war. Sherman, Grant and hundreds of thousands of men in blue ended it.

[Art_from_Ark]

75. My points are

1) Burning food and hundreds of buildings in a war is a type of "scorched earth" policy
2) Intentionally making life difficult for civilians in a war has bad repercussions after the war
3) The March to the Sea caused so much vitriol in the South that even today, it is a source of resentment in many areas
4) The North rubbed it in the South's face. Ever hear the song "Marching Through Georgia"? The stamp of Sherman didn't do much to heal old wounds, either, especially since it was accompanied by stamps of Lincoln and Grant.
5) Sherman played a major role in the genocide of the Western Indians.

Sherman deserves no respect.

[Baltimoreboy]

79. My turn

1) No, burning towns and cities is a kind of scorched earth policy. That policy denies everything to the enemy. Denying food to the enemy is common sense.
2) The "citizens" were part of an armed rebellion. Their support of that rebellion made life tough on themselves.
3) The fact that the South lost is also a source of resentment in many areas. Too bad. Lesson #1: Don't rebel.
4) The South lost a civil war and you have the audacity to complain about how they were treated in a song? And the South ensured that the stamp of Lincoln would be forever canceled. Had he lived, he would have welcomed back the Southern states with open arms.

[Art_from_Ark]

106. Counterpoint

1) Scorched earth-- burning what the "enemy" needs. Good thing if the winner does it, bad thing if the loser does it.

2) Are all citizens part of an armed rebellilon? Perhaps most of these citizens just wanted to live their lives. At any rate, most of them could only watch as their foodstores were destroyed and homes ruined. Once again-- Good thing if the winner does it, bad thing if the loser does it.

3) It's one thing to lose a war-- it's quite another to have the loss rubbed in your face. That was the policy of the Radical Republicans all throughout Reconstruction. Then they stole the election of 1876 from the rightful winner, Democrat Samuel Tilden, who might have been able to do more to mend fences with the South. As it was, the ill treatment of the defeated South led to a deep-seated resentment that continues to this day-- nearly 140 years after hostilities officially ended.

4) Liconln did want to treat the South in a conclilatory manner, and that's why he was offed by the Staunton gang. His election, however, had ignited the secessionist movement, and his party inflicted hardship upon the South after the official end of hostilities. Thus, for better or worse, Lincoln came to be associated in the South with what his party had done during Reconstruction.

[RoyGBiv]

109. Question...

Staunton gang?

[RoyGBiv]

89. Sherman's March

At any rate, it was acts like these that caused generations of Southerners to hold "Yankees" in contempt.

What caused generations of Southerners to hold Yankees in contempt was in part experience with the natural effects of invasion and having a rebellion quelled and in part the development of a culture based on half-truths and exaggeration. The political culture of the South played off of, encouraged, and helped refine these myths to the point that misrepresentations of the events of 1861-65 were held as sacred truths that no one would question else be held as an apostate.

Sherman, as a CW army commander, was no worse and little better than commanders on both sides of the conflict. Jubal Early's raid into Pennsylvania late in the war was more vicious and deadly than Sherman's trip through Georgia except that his raid was ended by Union resistance and did not achieve the same scope. But he is not seen as a devil in Yankee eyes, except among those more initiated into his actions, whereas Sherman is a devil to the South even among those who really couldn't tell you who he was beyond what they've been told in fairy tales since birth.

You place me in a distasteful position. I loathe defending this individual on any level, particular due to this actions in the so-called Indian Wars. But I think if he is to be criticized, it should be for things he actually did without all the hyperbole. Put another way, one could reasonably criticize Sherman for some of his actions and non-actions in Georgia, but to single him out as any worse than Grant, Lee, Buell, J. Johnston, et al is misguided. There was little that was "civil" about the Civil War.

[Ms. Clio]

27. "Civility" in American politics is another myth about the "good old days"

You should read what Southerners wrote about Lincoln after his assassination.

[HEyHEY]

30. Here's a story

John A. Macdonald (Canada's first Prime Minister) was at a debate - he was a notorious drunk. His opponent (who's name eludes me at the moment so we'll call him Brown) was on the stand talking about what a horrible PM MAcDonald was. Macdonald was so ripped when he got to the podium, he threw up all over. The crowd was stunned. THen Macdonald looked up and said "THat's what I do whenever I hear Brown talk"

Ah the good old days.

[Ms. Clio]

34. LMAO--the days of wine and roses, indeed!

Great story!

[LibertyorDeath]

62. I love Canadian History. LOL

[RoyGBiv]

50. Southerners and Lincoln

This is a good place to start.

Harrell, Carolyn. When the Bells Tolled for Lincoln: Southern Reaction to the Assassination.

The basic conclusion is that the reaction was mixed.

[Ms. Clio]

55. I have read many many primary source documents from that period myself

But thanks for the cite.

[RoyGBiv]

59. I've read quite a few myself...

Some of them were fairly awful.

Ms. Harrell consulted a number of unpublished sources, especially diaries and letters, in order to attempt to gage private thought. With the enforced memorials, a lot of the white South only felt able to express truthful opinions privately.

[Ms. Clio]

60. So isn't it a good thing that DUers have this public forum

to express their own truthful opinions, while the "enforced memorials" dominate every media outlet?

I hadn't seen your earlier post before my first one on this thread--you are active in historical preservation? Very interesting--what sort of work have you done?

[RoyGBiv]

63. Expressing Opinions

I think it is wonderful that DU exists, and I also think it is indicative of the fact that freedom of speech is considered more a sacred right today than it has been in previous eras. I'm not intending to put words in your mouth here, but I also feel compelled to say that free speech runs in many directions. It also includes the right to try to discourage certain opinions from being expressed in certain ways. And, the "enforced memorials" we are experiencing currently are nothing like what was instituted in the South after the Civil War.

As for my preservation work, it's all been volunteer and thus somewhat varied. I'm currently trying to find some people who live in Mississippi who would be willing to help protect and restore some of the graves at Brice's Crossroads. The Civil War graves are well-tended, but the surrounding graves, some of which date back to the 1840's, are in a horrible state -- broken, missing, falling, written upon.

I worked with those seeking to block Disney from building a theme park at Manassas, Virginia. I was an Internet coordinator of fund-raising and publicity for the Longstreet Memorial Fund Project. (This was the project with which I was most intimately tied. I could talk for days about it.) I helped to publicize and seek funds for the restoration efforts at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, VA. I'm also associated with various groups that engage in preservation activities, which has led to various projects.

With the exception of the LMF, I'm a minor player, sometimes doing little more than finding a fallen, small monument and setting it upright or pikcing up garbage at historical sites.

[Ms. Clio]

85. Free speech does indeed run in many directions

I'm not intending to put words in your mouth here, but I also feel compelled to say that free speech runs in many directions. It also includes the right to try to discourage certain opinions from being expressed in certain ways. And, the "enforced memorials" we are experiencing currently are nothing like what was instituted in the South after the Civil War.

So that I also have the right to try to discourage someone else from discouraging certain opinions from being expressed in certain ways, right? I guess that could be extended ad infinitum. I just don't think that people who scold other people on a public message board for their expression of their feelings should expect to be immune from similar criticisms, and that certainly cuts both ways.

Please explain what you mean by these "enforced memorials?" Could your provide examples, please? I don't believe I have heard of that before?

As for your historical preservation work, it sounds very useful and admirable--I really like historic sites, although I tend to prefer places like Monticello and Williamsburg. However, anytime I can visit the place or places where the events I am studying occurred, even if it's just a field in the middle of nowhere, really helps me to connect with the environment and the people who lived there. Interestingly, I just heard in a seminar that most Americans "get their history" from museums and historic sites.

[RoyGBiv]

87. Scolding / Enforced Memorials

I don't think scolding generally does much good period. In my few comments on this subject, I have made an attempt not to address any particular individuals whose behavior has made me uncomfortable, and I've not called them bad people. I have, however, referred to the behavior how I see it. I don't think of this as scolding.

As for enforced memorials, this typically took place in the context of military rule of areas of the South. Military officials declared official days of mourning and required church leaders to hold memorial services for Lincoln else be subjected to greater scrutiny of the church's other activities. In practical terms this meant that the churches had to hold a memorial service, or the congregation would not be allowed to meet at other times. The church would in effect be declared a rogue organization not complying with federal authority and thus disbanded.

No one, to my knowledge, was compelled at the point of a gun to attend these memorials. However, many who otherwise would not have attended did so due to a silent understanding that if they didn't, it would be noted, and they would experience more trouble from military officials.

[Ms. Clio]

90. I actually wasn't referring to you as a scold

I was thinking of other people, who have upbraided their fellow DUers for their language by calling them vile, hateful, etc. For some reason, I think that's just a tad hypocritical.

I especially think it's hypocritical because I can just imagine the vitriol that would be heaped upon the person who was stupid enough to post after Bin Laden's death: "He was a human being. He had family that loved him. Don't say anything bad about him, because it just makes us look like freepers to speak ill of the dead." But of course, that post will never be made here.

Do you have some cites for these "enforced memorials"--a quick check of my bookshelves and Google doesn't turn up anything?

[RoyGBiv]

91. Cites...

This is starting to stretch my memory, for which I apologize. It just came out off the cuff, and I wasn't prepared to offer much supporting material. It comes from an understanding of political and social conditions in the South immediately after the CW, which I've developed over the years.

That said, if I recall correctly, the Harrell book I cited in the post that started this goes into this in some detail. I don't own this book, so I can offer no complete quotes.

Eric Foner's Reconstruction has some material on this I believe as does David Blight's Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. The latter is a good source of commentary about the conflicts in the South over the meaning of "decoration day," which began, officially, as a day or mourning for Union dead and was later appropriated for other purposes.

I took a quick look at Sarah Morgan's diary. An entry on April 22nd contains the following lines, which don't speak directly to the incidents I mentioned regarding churches, but which illustrate to a degree the knowledge that official mourning was required:

To see a whole city draped in mourning is certainly an imposing spectacle, and becomes almost grand when it is considered as an expression of universal affliction. So it is, in one sense. For the more violently "Secesh" the inmates, the more thankful they are for Lincoln's death, the more profusely the houses are decked with the emblems of woe. They all look to me like "not sorry for him, but dreadfully grieved to be forced to this demonstration." So all things have indeed assumed a funereal aspect. Men who have hated Lincoln with all their souls, under terror of confiscation and imprisonment which they understand is the alternative, tie black crape from every practicable knob and point to save their homes. Last evening the B-s were all in tears, preparing their mourning. What sensibility! What patriotism! a stranger would have exclaimed. But Bella's first remark was: "Is it not horrible? This vile, vile old crape! Think of hanging it out when -" Tears of rage finished the sentence. One would have thought pity for the murdered man had very little to do with it.

Morgan and those that ran in her social circle were at the time dealing with soldiers returning home and more importantly realizations that many would not be returning. They felt as though they were not being allowed to adequately mourn their own dead, yet being forced to mourn Lincoln.

[Ms. Clio]

93. I've read Race and Reunion

A riveting and important work, but I checked the index and I'm pretty sure he says nothing about "enforced" memorials. Blight's main point is that the North and South were able to "reunite" and sentimentalize the white soldiers on both sides of the conflict because of racism and the imposition of Jim Crow, as well as the mythology of the Lost Cause.

Thanks very much for the diary quote, it reminds me of other primary sources I have read, and also seems very pertinent to the current controversies--Lincoln, after all, is generally regarded as one of the very best of our Presidents, yet he was despised and hated by many people of his time.

[RoyGBiv]

95. Blight's Book

Race and Reunion has a lot of anecdotes that related to his larger thesis, but which speak to other issues as well. For example, his book contains the most in-depth accounting of the White Sulphur Springs meeting of former CW generals that I've read in a modern secondary source. I've used that and his references for it with many other things not strictly related.

Also, I'm not real fond of his index. What I mentioned above is not indexed either that I recall. References to Rosecrans, Lee, or Longstreet will get you there, but not if that's what you're looking for specifically.

That said, I may in fact be mistaken. Unless I'm referring to note cards, I sometimes forget where I found information on specific incidents.

I did find this link. I'm now certain this is where I read the bit about the religious services. It doesn't give any detail, but it's a review of the Harrell book:

http://webpages.charter.net/lincolnbooks/Harrell.html

[Ms. Clio]

103. I checked the index for Lincoln's assassination

And reread most of the Decoration Days chapter (I am sure the vast majority of Americans do not know that Memorial Day was started by former slaves honoring Union soldiers), and didn't find anything about the churches. I would certainly be interested in any further info.

Thanks for the link, but Harrell seems to be saying that most Southerners were not unhappy about Lincoln's death, just afraid to express their glee in public--I don't consider that a "mixed reaction."

From a book review at the History Cooperative (sorry I can't link to it, but if you have access to their journals you can read it there, Journal of American History 2000 86(4): 1789-1790):


Carolyn L. Harrell can say little about the reactions of black and white farmers and laborers or of ordinary residents of towns and cities, because those people were not writers of diaries and letters. Newspapers, which could have provided suggestive material about public opinion, were of little use because editors had no choice but to ignore the sentiments oftheir readers and reflect those of the occupying armies. In Texas before its occupation, the assassination was greeted joyfully by the press and the assassin John Wilkes Booth was hailed as a hero. In short, the United States Army's suppression of public opinion in the South amounts to an insurmountable obstacle to the description of southern reaction to the assassination.

The southerners who most exulted over the slaying of Lincoln—or whose exultation can be best documented—were those who had been wealthy and powerful at the beginning of the war and were ruined by it. Harrell quotes some of those people, but she appears to be reluctant to allow them to speak with the full force of their loathing for the man responsible for their downfall.

Which I think brings me back to my original point--American politics has never been "kinder" or "gentler," it has always been a blood sport.

[RoyGBiv]

104. Thanks for that....

I read Harrell's book some time ago while doing a project on the meaning of "Union" to various groups. I did not read any critiques. From what I recollect, that appears to be a good summary of the problems her study had. I still found it helpful, for what it was.

With regard to the "mixed" comment I made, I should have given more of an explanation. I was referring to the mixed motivations behind sentiments in the South, i.e. the public statements as opposed to the private ones and why there was a difference. And, as mentioned, some dreaded what vengeance Lincoln's assassination might bring on the South. I did not mean to indicate that the Southern elite and those who had ardently supported the Confederacy were truly saddened by his death. But, there were Unionists in the South, and blacks, on the whole, were greatly saddened by his death.

For the record, I was not and am not disagreeing with your initial point. In fact, I fully agree with it and have argued the same myself on various occasions, specifically in reference to the election of Andrew Jackson, but it goes back even before that. Have you ever read Affairs of Honor by Joanne Freeman? US politics has always been nasty; in fact I might be tempted to argue it is less nasty today than it has been in the past.

BTW, we are in full agreement on Blight's book. I re-read some passages on this myself, and I could not find what I was looking for, so I was wrong to mention it. It is a wonderful, book, though. Your note about the origin of Memorial Day is one of many new things I learned from this book.

In any case, when I get a chance to get to the library, I'll see if I can trace some of my notes on things like this, and I'll PM you if I find anything relevant.

[Ms. Clio]

105. Thanks for reminding me!

I've been meaning to read Freeman's book ever since I first learned of it--especially since it relates directly to my current work!

I think a very good argument could be made that 19th century U.S. politics were even more vicious than now--Jackson's election is a classic example. Although maybe it's just that there were so many more individual "media sources"--little newspapers, handbills, speeches and sermons, etc.--that were under no professional or ethical obligations to ensure accuracy or exercise restraint, unlike the corporate media of today (at least in theory!), so they could say and print the most outrageous lies and inflammatory rhetoric.

Race and Reunion is one of the best and most important books I have encountered to date--and it's a cracking good read, as well.

[NV1962]

35. Civility without integrity is a pointless exercise

x-g.o.p.er, I understand your point about separating the pantomime involved in "politics as usual" and keeping a sage perspective on the Big Picture. And obviously, given the choice, who would spurn civility?

But that's the problem: there's no more choice. It's bad enough that partisan autism has reduced the national political theater under influence from the national Binary Syndrome to vocal, nasty and mutually assured destruction. But what's really bad is that civility nor integrity will remedy this - it's only combined civility and integrity that might (just might!) turn the relentless tidal waves of sewage mixed in with numbing idiocy.

Civility, understood as a mature interpretation of the essential need to simultaneously acknowledge mutual differences and mutual equality, simply requires integrity to be effective, at the peril of becoming merely well-groomed but sterile propaganda.

I agree that the departure of civility deserves mourning but it's the permanent dismissal of integrity -- in a professional, ethical and individual sense -- that cast its spell of doom.

Given that preference for integrity over civility, in absence of both, I see little alternative but to at least honor integrity.

That is the rationale why I apologize nor hide my contempt for the famously deceased, as well as for the nauseating orgasmic wave of hypocrisy that is propagating now in a baffling one-sided manner, barring little refuges of political dissenters as on this forum. That is why I am unabashed and unapologetic in expressing my satisfaction over the permanent demise of an icon of revolting behavior, who I consider the patriarch of ethical misery, intellectual dishonesty and murderous arrogance. I shall not bow for an effigy of Beelzebub nor his minions; neither in respect nor acknowledgement.

It is my personal tribute to integrity, in a probably vain but sincere attempt to help induce introspection.

Ultimately, civility is a two-way street; I don't see the point of permanently yielding to a murderously craven gang of hoodlums playing chicken. Sometimes, getting metaphorically in a car and heading straight for the chickenhawks is the right thing to do.

I don't think we see eye to eye here, but I thought I'd give you a straight view from the other perspective...

[Just Me]

44. Well, at least you stuck to having integrity in your post,...

,...and I acknowledge you for that. You stuck with judging events and issues rather than being personally vitriolic and engaging in emotional assasinations.

I can digest your every word (in this post) without feeling infected by a viciousness that is so consuming. I can handle (and have engaged in myself) a momentary cathartic spew. But, the stream of such spew,...is clearly as harmful as any obsessive indulgence.

Anyway, I appreciate your "straight view from the other perspective". Just acknowledge that, most people understand that perspective, feel it and know it,...but prefer to operate from vision that cannot be expressed from such a basis.

We are in this struggle, together. How are we going to struggle, together?

[x-g.o.p.er]

49. Thanks for the reasoned response...

And though we may disagree, I will admit I can see your point of view.

I just think a different strategy is the better way.

[DrWeird]

How "civil" are you going to be when Osama dies?

Happy or sad?

Who killed more innocent people, Reagan or bin Laden?

[x-g.o.p.er]

41. You're comparing apples and oranges

You are honestly going to compare a former American president to a friggin' terrorist?

Seriously? And please spare me the "Reagan was terrorist in his own way" argument. He was as much a terrorist as was Clinton a "traitor" by "giving missile technology" to the Chinese.

[DrWeird]

51. Reagan made bin Laden.

and thousands of other terrorists.

[DrWeird]

36. How "civil" are you going to be when Osama dies?

Happy or sad?

Who killed more innocent people, Reagan or bin Laden?

[HEyHEY]

42. Interesting point

I have to admit when he dies I doubt I'd think twice before calling him a piece of shit.

[RoyGBiv]

45. Osama's death won't affect me...

Osama dying changes none of the underlying problems that he represents. If those problems ever "die," I'll be joyous.

[fujiyama]

38. I don't think we should rejoice

in any way over his death.

Nor, should we lie to ourselves about him and his policies. This is why, while I have refrained from cheering about his death, I have used the coverage of his death as an opportunity to learn about the misery he caused for so many. Being that I am relatively young (23), I didn't have any understanding of political issues when he was president.

I also think we can learn some lessons on being a successful politician from him. After all, here's a guy that could smile and talk to blue collar workers one minute, and then cut their pensions, their kids' school lunches the next. Yet, he won one of the largest landslides in American history. Whatever he did have (inspite of being the ass he was), it did appeal to many.

Maybe, he was a better actor than people give him credit for.

[Djinn]

46. Hardly seen anyone rejoice

what I've seen is people who refuse the listen to the revisionists and are repulsed by the media hagiographies of a man who caused untold pain to untold millions, from welfare cuts, to corporate croynism, to arming and funding Islamic fundie terrorists to the slaughter of innocent people in South America.

Reagan was not, under any definition of the word, "civil", the fact that he's now physically dead does not change that

[x-g.o.p.er]

47. I have seen people rejoicing...

but I guess we just look at things through a different prism.

[Djinn]

53. I didn't say no-one was

just that hardly any were - not enough to justify the handwringing on DU today.

I havn't seen anyone suggest that perhaps the "Lord sent" Alzheimers which was his explanation for the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. Name more than five posters who have stated that they are actually....

..."rejoicing".

You may be confusing an actual outpouring of hatred for the man and his policies for "rejoicing".

[leftofthedial]

54. Reagan was a killer, a conman and a traitor and a thief

I will be very civil in telling you I am glad he is dead and wish he would have paid a dearer price for his crimes.

There has been no room for "honest disagreement" since HE changed the rules and ignored the law and the Constitution. We are now in a political knife fight and we all know about the rules in a knife fight.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. I'm sorry, but civility in politics NEVER existed, and was only...

...mentioned when poilitical points could be scored. In short, civility in politics is a complete fabrication, a fairy tale.

The rightwing of the Republican Party and their media attack-dogs have been verbally rubbing the noses of their opponents into the muck and mire for quite some time, claiming holier-than-thou status EVERY FRICKIN' STEP OF THE WAY.

It's too late for civility. Those folks meant us harm, and some of us have already begun to suffer from the economy dumped on us by the FratBoy Fuhrer. Still others are suffering from the loss of a loved one in the Middle East.

The only way to deal with a rabid animal is to put it down...and that should be the objective of every single one of us on this board. If you're too concerned about hurting someone's feelings, then step aside and let the rest of us get to the front lines.

[Geo55]

58. forget Reagan

The guy is DEAD....but his ideals live on....that's what's REALLY scary...if our boy king drops tomorrow...we're stuck with Cheney.

[ima_sinnic]

61. "civility"? or the truth?

Reagan was a cornball Hollywood personality who was complicit in the suffering and death of unknown thousands of Central Americans and others. Because of Iran-Contra I will always despise him; he was a contemptible traitor who felt himself above the law (and I do not accept the excuse that he "didn't know" what was going on. That is malarkey). His reign, when the Repukes were at the height of their glory, ushered in the me-first Age of Greed. Personally I could care less if he is dead or alive. When he became disabled by Alzheimer's, the world became a better place because his presence could no longer hurt anyone.

What is the point of "civility," anyway? To feed the delusions of his worshippers? screw them, the truth hurts. a person has to earn respect in his lifetime; it is not automatically granted just because he dies.

[PurityOfEssence]

64. It's not Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog

like in the old Warner Brothers Cartoon.

People who actively conspire to murder foreigners who don't want their countries subjugated, who steal people's futures by rolling back civil rights, who wage economic and class warfare and who actively defy all laws to do as they please have crossed an important line.

The problem with Reagan was that he maintained an affability, and the sweet killer is the worst kind. At least Nixon was a full-frontal asshole.

Reagan hurt the weak, cheated the disenfranchised and bullied anyone he pleased. That many of us are indecorously rejoicing is a failing on our part, but it displays some kind of grounding in humanity, which is something that man long since lost. Had he not been so successful at keeping the lie alive, perhaps there'd be a bit less furore.

What is most ugly about his attitude, as with Junior's is this: they can whimper about how folks should just turn it off after a gentlemanly day of work. The people they've thrown out into the snow who fight with every breath for their survival haven't that luxury, and it's not decency to suggest they should buck up and take it. The casual, feckless selfishness of some of the powerful is just plain grotesque, and to not rage against it is somewhat inhuman.

I absolutely loathe Tom DeLay, but HE WORKS. He's scheming and conniving all day long, and he puts out an impressive amount of heat. Dispicable though he is, on a certain level of human endeavor, he's a far better man than either Reagan or Bush. Bush is just spoiled, but Reagan should have known better. There's real frustration about what evil Reagan wrought on our world; that some are indecorous is nothing more than human nature.

Sorry you're tweaked by this, and I hope you still feel at home. Try this: add up all the different voices that have dismayed you, and then divide that into 45K, and you'll get a calming result about the relatively small percentage of people here who are beyond the pale.

I join you in a toast to civility, and I will hold dear to a sense of manners, but there's also a time to let your hair down and have a good holler in the face of frustration or release.

We've had a brief lull here from the primary rancor, but it's about to ramp up very quickly and stay that way for awhile. Mercifully, we're mostly on the same side, but there are still divisive issues like Nader, Kerry-slagging and the like, so spats will happen here and there.

Chill baby; it's a big honkin' tent on this side of the divide. You've made the right decision, but people are just a bit much at times.

(Besides, you should hear what I REALLY think about the man; I'm being gentle.)

[Piperay]

68. I think that the theft of the Presidentcy

in 2000 ended civility on the part of the Democrats for good or at least until chimp is banished from the Whitehouse. JMO on why so much venom. :shrug:

[mopaul]

74. so a few nasty words from me is worse than what reagan did?

you weigh reagan's sins against my nasty comments? you've made me worse than reagan with your pompous over reaction. you actually see me as the greater demon. wow

[ibegurpard]

86. A sentiment not uncommon among the nanny wing of the Democratic Party

unfortunately.

[salin]

76. sadly seems to be pretty much a lost cause

with this crowd. Heck even calling for civility is somehow read as traitorous to the cause by some.

[mopaul]

77. this crowd?....you're IN this crowd..............n/t

[salin]

78. funny

a) refered to "by some" eg some in the crowd.
b) of late - I don't feel terribly much like one of the crowd... ah to be marginalized with in the marginalized.

[buddhamama]

80. there are various definitions of "civility"

venom and vitriol are one thing, an honest discussion the man is another.

it was implied that to speak ill of the day so soon
after their passing was being uncivil, lacking social grace.

members of this board have stated lies about the man.
it is imperative that we correct misconceptions and address the lies.

i did search this morning through the archives
and know what, i didn't find the same reaction to the venom and vitriol that was spewed when Strom Thurmond died or Rachel Corrie, and a host of others. i didn't find comparison threads of DUers to Rev Phelps in the other deaths.

was it Reagan's station in life that dictates deference?


would the calls for civility be non-existent if say,
it was Arafat or bin Laden that had passed?
oh, you betcha!

[Zomby Woof]

102. not only that

I maintain that is is impossible to be uncivil to dead people. Dead people aren't known to be offended at the behavior directed towards them. As for this unwritten rule that one must only speak respectfully of the dead, I say that's an outmoded superstitious taboo and needs flushed like a stack of used Reagan bedpans.

[x-g.o.p.er]

81. kick n/t

[dryan]

82. my 2 cents

The election of 1996 was pretty nasty, but last year the Doles and the Clintons appeared on the same stage at the Kennedy Center and talked about that race. Bob Dole was magnamious (sp.). We have lost something in modern American politics; the ability to agree to disagree. I read "Man of the House" which was Tip O'Neill's memoirs. He spoke fondly of Reagan as a person. I don't know whose fault it is that we hav come to this impasse but I think it has hurt our country. This is one of the reasons our country is so divided.

[dryan]

83. my 2 cents

The election of 1996 was pretty nasty, but last year the Doles and the Clintons appeared on the same stage at the Kennedy Center and talked about that race. Bob Dole was magnamious (sp.). We have lost something in modern American politics; the ability to agree to disagree. I read "Man of the House" which was Tip O'Neill's memoirs. He spoke fondly of Reagan as a person. I don't know whose fault it is that we hav come to this impasse but I think it has hurt our country. This is one of the reasons our country is so divided.

[Commendatori]

84. Isn't this why we have mods?

I don't expect either side to be civil when a political hero from the other side dies. If Clinton had died this weekend instead of Reagan, the Freepers would be toasting it for a week, and I honestly don't expect anything different.

Why do we have mods? So people can SPEAK FREELY and have objective third parties judge as to where the line is drawn.

I don't have the hate towards Reagan that Freepers have towards Clinton (sure, his AIDS policies were reprehensible, but his tax policy helped my parents immeasurably), but if I did I'd feel free to act just like Freepers did when Wellstone died.

[tom_paine]

88. Ideally, x-g.o.p.er, you are correct

In practice, that is a prescription for the grave.

Civility is dead, and will eventually be replaced with civil strife. Inevitable in other places like Imperial Amerika, where a proud freedom is in the process of being erased by Orwellian Totalitarian Tyranny.

I thought as you did for many years, xgoper, and for many years did not want to think the Nazi Face was the face of the foe.

But it is. Undoubtedly...it is. Kinder and gentler, but all the pancake makeup in the world can't hide that moustache, metaphorically speaking.

Now, if Moderate Republicans were to wrest control of their Party from the Totalitarian Monsters and America-Haters...but that is an impossibility. Moderate Republicans seem to have made a Faustian Deal, to paraphrase Gore, with Tyrants.

"Give us unchecked Power and voctory after victory, even if you had to cheat to get them, and it's OK by me!"

In the absence of a Moderate Republican Revolt, there is NO COMPROMISE with Totalitarian Scum, Kinder and Gentler Nazis, and other assorted Busheviks.

None.

You may not agree with me on this one. Hell, you probably don't. But I waited and watched for 10+ years before making this decision.

In retrospect, I and the rest of Free America who watched in horror during 2000-2004have had ENOUGH.

No civility towards Monsters reading from the Mein Kampf Playbook.

NO CIVILITY with Brownshirts.

It won't work any better this time around than it worked in Munich in 1938.

Sorry, pal, but that's how I feel. I miss civility, too, but it's not coming back until the next Renessaince (which will follow the upcoming New Dark Age if humanity as a species survives that)

[x-g.o.p.er]

99. I am aware of the difference between ideals and reality...

but it still bums me out, my friend.

[tom_paine]

117. It bums me out, too . I'm too busy readying for the

Nonviolent Battle for Liberty!

Would that it wasn't the case. Would that civility would make a comeback. Aggressive zealotry is NOT my primary mode of operation and I would very much appreciate being able to put it down as Cincinnatus put down the sword to return to the plow.

But we must remember that we didn't create the current climate, though we are responding aggressively to it. We must also take care not to become "addicted to incivility" and that if the Old Republic is ever restored, to return to those ways.

But there is no other way now to respond to the Imperial Family and their Minions. They have revealed themselves as Totalitarians and UnAmericans who MUST be stopped or the American Experiment will die.

And THAT is the bottom line, whatever wistful nostalgia we might have for the Old American Republic. The best we can do is to try and restore it and return to those days.

Step #1 (far from the last): A Kerry Victory in November! And let's take the Senate back, as well!

[welshTerrier2]

92. you want civility ??

you got it, my friend ...

here, for all the haters to pick apart, is my view of what's wrong with feeling such joy over the death of an old, very sick man ... a man with no remaining capacity to do harm ...

as many others have said on this subject, Reagan's conduct in office was both hideous and criminal ... he should have been tried and convicted by an international tribunal ... but that was the Reagan of 15 years ago, not the Reagan of today ...

here's my analogy, fwiw ... it concerns the "power of the state" to punish those who have committed crimes ... the standard, in my opinion, should be one of "minimum necessary force" ... so, if lives are at risk in a hostage situation and there's reason to believe the hostage taker may be about to kill his hostages, it might, in certain circumstances, be appropriate for police to shoot the hostage taker ... HOWEVER, once a criminal is captured and found guilty, let's say of premeditated murder, I don't think it is ever appropriate to put someone to death ... the state would be violating the rule of "minimum necessary force" ... it could not, in my opinion, be reasonably argued that an incarcerated person is a continued threat to the society ...

the lesson intended, whether clear or not, from this analogy, is that we need to stop punching after our opponent has been vanquished ... and just as it is wrong to do harm (beyond the standard of "minimum necessary force") to those with no power, however evil their deeds may have been, it is also wrong to feel joy when those who have become powerless to do evil become sick or die ...

and to those of you who feel justified in owning such hatred, I can only say that I feel a deep divide with your values and that I worry about our ability to form a unified force against our common enemies ... hatred of the weak and dying is not a prescription for a better world ... and is not a value for any cause that I would join ...

[Raskolnik]

94. Agree 100%

I couldn't agree more. (hence the 100%)

We are not well-served by appearing ghoulish. If we could funnel this hate into getting out and DOING something to make sure W was not re-elected, the we'd have something.

And to those who argue that the Republicans did it first, I answer that I want to be BETTER than them, and this is one clear cut way to do that.

Thanks.

[Jade Fox]

97. A few random thoughts....

I'm glad you posted. Basically, I agree with you, but...but...

I've been biting my own tongue, because I knew the media would deify
Reagan, and Bush would try to hide in his shadows. This is a President
whose administration has more convicted felons than any other, just to
name one of the outrageous things about Reagan.

The moral arbitrators of the Right want us to be civil--so they can shove
it down our throats.

They started it. No, really, they did. For sure the Left has a long history
of making fun of the right, especially when they are in power. But the rise
of Limbaugh (and the heyday of Lee Atwater) happened during the entirely
Republican dominated 1980's. Rush Limbaugh was not making fun of
the powerful, he was demonizing those trying to change the status
quo (Feminazis, anyone?). Rush's "humor" was strictly name-calling, and
making it alright again to be a bigot. Keep in mind this is a man regularly
invited to Washington DC Republican events. This is a man who the sitting
President of the United States has called a "great American". I credit
Limbaugh for birthing the current era of uncivility in Politics.

If you haven't read it, please get a hold of a copy of "Blinded by the Right"
by David Brock. It details exactly how determinded these people are to
destroy the Democratic party and anything politically progressive in this
country using whatever means it will take. And they have gobs of money
to do it with.

It is difficult to maintain one's civility in the light of these things.

[x-g.o.p.er]

100. I know I have a long way to go...

when it comes to looking at this from a new perspective.

The realization is that there will be no compromise between the left and right, and that truly saddens me. Tit-for-tat has become the norm, and apparently there are only two options---victory or death.

And that is what's unnerving for me.

[Neshanic]

98. Who ya gonna call?

So is there some checking account we put this "civility" in? Does it get cashed by us when one of our heroes passes away? Do we present it to the Freeps and they honor it when the time comes?

Who do we complain to when one of our heroes dies, and all the stations on the dial are Right Wing? Where is that complaint counter for non-civility for us? Why is that window closed when Freepers say the most horrible and insane things about Clinton for eight years? You think they were nuts then?

This Karma/cosmic gotcha has not landed on the Freepers. Why are we looking skyward for it, when the Freeps know it's as real as a Fundametalist whipped Easter Bunny?

Stop sermonizing. Stop being a doormat for people who have no respect for us. They have no repsect for themselves... that's why they are Republicans.

[Zomby Woof]

101. it's okay to shit on his grave

He's dead... he won't give a fuck.

Not that he would remember anyway.

Fuck that old dead bastard.

[notbush]

107. Where does that hate come from?

You want me to be your supporter?????

[Forkboy]

110. lol

I highly doubt ZW is looking for your support.It's probably going to be news to him that he's even running :)

[RapidCreek]

112. See post #111

RC

[Zomby Woof]

116. um

I don't care if you support me or not - not like I am running for office.

The hate comes from Newton's Third Law.

[Mike Niendorff]

108. no flames here.

> This has made me realize that it seems the days of political civility
> and honest disagreement are gone forever. It's become a fuck 'em all
> and take no prisoners environment, and we are all the worse off for it.

I agree with every word you said here.

And yet, there it is.

We progressives did not create this environment. We have tried in vain for decades to rise above it, only to have that desire for civility and reason turned back on us as a weakness to be exploited -- exploited by those who have no principles, no honor, and no shame. In my opinion, we have lost that battle for the time being. You cannot have one-sided civility. You cannot have a rational debate with those who have foresaken their own rationality, and who immerse themselves in hatred and vitriol.

We did not create this sitaution, but it is, nonetheless, the situation within which we now are forced to act. We have been at the social bargaining table for as long as I can remember. The right wing, by contrast, has not. They have barricaded themselves in their bunkers, sharpened their knives, cleaned their guns and prepared for war. Only a fool ignores this forever.

If the right wing wants a return to civility, to rational discourse, to the old style democratic debate that built this country, then it's high time for them to demonstrate this by their actions. Let them show their committment to civility by behaving civilly themselves. Let them show their committment to reasoned debate by reacquainting themselves with such fundamental concepts as "intellectual honesty", "integrity" and "honest self-examination".

But until these people begin to exhibit these basic, fundamental qualities, there is simply no reason for us to continue to sit at the bargaining table, tapping our fingers, and pretending that if we just wait long enough, just hold out enough hope, that eventually these people will show up and begin to behave like adults in a civil society again. Such hope flies in the face of demonstrated reality, and ignores the severe danger that their movement truly represents.

I think that all of us would like for things to be different. But they aren't -- though not through lack of effort on our part. We've done what we could. But you can't strike a social contract when one side won't even show up at the bargaining table.


MDN

[RapidCreek]

111. Your post is innacurate and disengenous to the extreme

The battle should never end with one who is inherently evil, no matter what sort of happy plastic face is used to hide the putrescent brew which bubbles inside the skull upon which it is affixed. Those of you who give respect to the memory of the despicable...lend respectability to their despicable acts. The mask must be torn away...for now and always.

Reagan was a happily, evil, hateful, insensitive, treasonous, lying, murderous thug. Now he's a dead evil, hateful, insensitive, treasonous, lying, murderous, thug. I'll give him the same respect in death that I gave him in life...for even after he no longer breaths the air he helped pollute, drinks the water he helped make foul, walks the streets littered with the wrecked lives of the homeless and aids victims he created, or thinks of the 2 to 3 hundred thousand Central Americans he helped rape and murder....I am...and I will be for decades to come. Reagans illness and subsequent death, hardly erases the legacy of pain he worked so hard to manufacter and left the world to suffer....a suffering which will live on, long after he has rotted to dust.

I hate Ronald Reagan and I always will. My hate is not the same as the Reagans, Bush's, Coulter's, Limbaughs and Rumsfelds of the world, however. It is very, very different.

The hatred a man feels for the individuals who lynched his black brother, is not the same sort of hatred a man feels for individuals with black skin.

The hatred a man feels for the person who murders his family, is not the same sort of hatred the murderer feels for the family he murders.

The hatred a man feels for an individual who asserts AIDS is bestowed upon the ungodly, is not the same as the same sort of hatred a man feels for an individual because of his or her sexual preference.

The hatred a man feels for an individual who threw him out of a mental institution and onto the street, is not the same sort of hatred a man feels for the person who suffers mental illness.

The hatred a person feels for an idividual who fingers them as a communist and causes the ruination of their life is not the same sort of hatred a person feels for the person who hates those who enjoy the freedoms our constitution offers.

And to drive the point home...

The hatred a woman feels for the man who raped her, is not the same sort of hatred a man feels for the woman he raped.

Hatred is not universal...it is tempered by the reasons one feels it and defined by the actions it inspires.

The right kind of hate is a healthy thing. Hatred of injustice, hatred of inequality and hatred of the sort of individual who advocates these things or tacitly accepts them through the disingenuous honoring of its perpetrators, is all that will narrow the scope of the very detrimental effects all four have on society.

Your civility toward an evil man is an exhibition of incivility to all those whome he so gleefully harmed. It gives that evil and it's bitter legacy the air of acceptibility and marginalizes the suffering, pain and misery of those both have effected, are effecting and will effect. I can think of nothing more uncivilized than that.

Away with you and your self serving, hollow, sanctimony....it is the fertilizer of the seed of evil and it has no place in our world.

RC

[mopaul]

118. thank you

every once in a while, someone says it right

[RapidCreek]

119. You are very welcome MoPaul

Here's another way to put it....A way which is a little more succinct.

How did Jesus react to the money changers? Did his reaction make him as bad as they were? Using the logic of the "let's be civilized" set...it most certainly did.

RC

[x-g.o.p.er]

120. I would think that your

inability to forgive, and your all-consuming anger and bitterness would be a more fertile ground for evil, and a place where hatred would more easily flourish...

as opposed to my sanctimony, or a desire for civil discourse, whatever your view may be.

But what do I know, wrapped in my self-serving naivete?