|
| |
A
Return to the Noble Art
of Political Debate
Politics/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
June 15, 2003
- Former President Bill Clinton gave a short
speech during the unveiling of his official portrait at the White House. He
did it with the usual Clinton flare and to be complimentary to both
President Clinton and his host, President Bush, from the way they talked
about each other it would have been hard to tell there was any partisan
animosity existing in Washington today. But it was what Bill Clinton said
that made my eyes widen, and they widened in a good way.
As Clinton thanked President Bush for his warmth and kindness in receiving
him, his wife the Senator and a select group of former Clinton staffers to
the White House for the unveiling of the portrait, he stopped to touch on
politics in America today. He expressed a desire to see the American
political forum return to the days where the art of eloquent, thoughtful and
statesman-like debate ruled and the current practice of blindly declaring
someone good or hatefully declaring someone evil became a thing of the past.
Okay, everyone get ready. What you are about to hear may shock you but I
wholeheartedly agree with Bill Clinton on this matter. That admission may
come as a bolt from the blue to those of you who haven’t really taken the
time to understand what I have written in the past but the fact is, unlike
many of my counterparts on the liberal-left, I do not harbor hate. Well,
maybe for the likes of Ted Rall and Islamic fundamentalists who want to kill
us all but not toward those I find in political opposition to my thoughts or
beliefs and who hold dear the open mind.
The atmosphere of political hate in this country has gone so overboard that
it has become a threat to our political system’s well-being. Never before
has such a vile attitude existed on both sides of the spectrum. It has
become commonplace to see young, supposedly educated Americans,
ideologically liberal in their youth, toting signs equating President Bush
to Adolph Hitler. They further equate the War on Terror to the genocide
committed by that narcissistic madman. Anyone who possesses any rational
thought process immediately dismisses their contentions as radical; they
have to. This is especially true for those of use who had parents who served
in World War II. Nevertheless the hate rolls on.
One
can say that this dark and twisted mentality exposed its ugly head during
the Clinton impeachment process. To be sure, there was an air of
vindictiveness that teetered on hate but it didn’t come anywhere near what
we are seeing today. Were there those who hated President Clinton? I am sure
there were. But to the extent of those who now march in the streets of our
country demanding that President Bush be tried for war crimes? I think not.
I could address the hypocrisy of these Bush-haters by pointing out
verifiable and proven facts about Bill Clinton’s performance during his
White House years. It wouldn’t be out-of-bounds to mention that he went into
Kosovo without a UN resolution, that many of his military actions caused
civilian deaths, that his intelligence was so flawed the US bombed the
Chinese embassy during the Kosovo campaign, that the intelligence used in
Somalia created the "Blackhawk Down” incident and that the intelligence
problems of today should be laid heavily, but not completely at his feet.
But that only fuels the fire. It keeps the dark and malicious circle of hate
alive. For the record, I harbor no hate toward Bill Clinton. I don’t care
for his politics, his ethics or his idea of morals but I don’t hate the man.
Bush-haters don’t care about the wrongs of the past when it comes to those
they supported and most often they will not admit to them. Many times when
trying to debate someone who has planted him or herself firmly on the left –
or firmly on the right for that matter – the tactic of justification comes
into play. I can’t tell you how many times I have been involved in a
conversation where I have made a valid point and my opponent simply
countered it with a factoid that is completely irrelevant to the
conversation at hand yet points out a wishfully similar flaw in someone I
support. While my first desire is to say, "What does that have to do with
the price of tea in China,” I usually look them right in the eyes and say,
"Didn’t your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?” It
is then that I usually wince and remember that the person I am talking to
may have been the victim of our educational system’s love of political
correctness and multiculturalism. In any case I am usually answered with,
"Well…” and they trail off into another subject all together in an effort to
win the debate at hand.
Therein lies the major flaw of the extremists on both sides; they only want
to argue ideology in an effort to win at all costs. While ideology is a very
important part of the political thought process it seldom ever works in
total when employed in reality. Those who embrace extremist ideologies on
both sides who are unwilling to embrace compromise and inclusion are failing
to realize that while their ideology may have merit in theory, many times
theory, or many aspects of it, has to remain just that. Many times theory
doesn’t work when the human element is injected. It is the extremist
ideologue who refuses to accept this reality that develops and falls prey to
the emotion of hate.
Yes, Bill Clinton has the right idea when he speaks of his desire to see
Americans in the political arena getting back to debate instead of the cycle
of hate-filled finger-pointing we are mired in today, and I applaud him for
saying so. To paraphrase the man, I think we all, "feel his pain…”
|
|
