Current media is rife with articles and opinion pieces
detailing and lamenting the political polarization in American society. (The
Atlantic magazine – an old fashioned liberal publication – in contrast to
new fashioned leftist media – concedes that conservatives merit respect, gives full treatment to the subject in its latest
issue.)
Evidence of its depth include:
1. Some divorces
were the result of spouses voting for different presidential candidates in
2016.
2. Thirty-five percent of Republicans and
forty-five percent of Democrats would be unhappy if a child married someone
from the “other” party (fifty years ago, the response was less than five
percent).
3. Facebook and other means of communication are
full of spiteful, nasty comments directed at holders of contrary views.
An author of The Atlantic issue mentioned earlier cited
other explanations having to do with the societal changes of the last fifty
years.
-- end of
military draft
-- Roe v.
Wade
--
Watergate
-- Vietnam
War
Sure, each of these factors had a negative impact on
national cohesiveness. The volunteer
army meant that the military was not staffed by “all” Americans but appealed to
a relatively small slice of youth who were attracted to the warrior class or
who needed a job. Roe v. Wade pitted
right to lifers against pro-choicers who viewed abortion, literally, as a life
and death matter versus abortion backers who considered the issue seemingly
so. Watergate and the Vietnam War came
to symbolize loss of respect for our leaders and institutions.
But, although societal changes can be disturbing and
unsettling, that seems an inadequate explanation for the deep animosity, including
hatred, felt by many members of one side when looking across the chasm at the
other.
The feelings expressed are so extreme, so personal, it’s
as if the targets are enemies – and an enemy, by definition, seeks your
destruction. It’s hard to think of such
people -- extreme partisans – ever uniting for a common purpose.
Personal feelings are affected by personal attacks in a
way that sharp opposition to others’ opinions are not. That was a fact that constituted a boundary
for civil discourse. Criticize the view;
don’t attack the person who holds it.
Obviously, that’s changed.
My view of “why” is that things have gotten personal –
and, hence -- toxic to civil discourse – because of the disappearance of social
mores which supported the boundaries.
It’s not nostalgia to lament the passing of the 50s. People were generally respectful of one
another not because they didn’t harbor hostile feelings toward others (human
nature is a given), but because social pressure would cause ostracism if
publicly vented.
These pressures have disappeared. Vulgar expressions, hateful language,
obscenities are commonplace – never sanctioned – and are usually commended for
honest bluntness.
But there’s a major problem. The object of such contempt and derision is
inclined to reciprocate the disdainful regard.
Hatred generates an equal response.
Language matters.
The old schoolyard cliché that “stick and stones may break my bones but
names will never hurt me” is blatantly false.
Hostile words are absorbed and turned against the accuser.
I want to suggest that the coarsening of our language and
the reluctance or refusal of social leaders to uphold standards of what used to
be termed “decency” are at the root of our desperate divide.
There used to be a consensus that, unlike other lands, we
Americans fight hard for what we believe in but win or lose, we knew the other
side was worthy of respect. We all want
what’s best for our nation. We just
disagree on the means, not the worthiness of the objective.
No more. Our side
“must” win. The consequences of victory
by the bad, ignorant, malevolent other side – the enemy – are intolerable. They
deserve all the horrible words thrown their way… and the divisions deepen.
One can scoff at these observations as overblown and
hyperbolic, but they do provide, at least, a “why”.
Is it a coincidence that with the loosening of social speech
codes in the 60s that the partisan divide widened?
Probably not.
