Get a Grip, America
By Julia Bernard
In 1856 a United States Senator named Charles Sumner spoke out against pro-slavery Southerners. A few days later he was beaten by a fellow congressman (Rep. Preston Brooks) on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sumner did not rejoin the Senate for a few years after this incident.
To be fair, that wasn't out of the norm at the time. In fact, up until around the mid-1800s dueling (with loaded pistols) was a respectable and honorable way of settling disagreements between politicians.
The most well-known example was the 1804 Burr/Hamilton duel. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers and the nation's first treasury secretary, over the issue of character.
To put this into perspective, it would be like Joe Biden dueling and killing Jack Lew simply because Lew questioned Biden's integrity. One leader murdering another over a disagreement. That seems unfathomable in today's society.
Yet that is hardly what you would hear in the news. There are more and more stories about the toxicity of politics and debates nowadays.
A politician is supposed to lead and represent the people. Politicians are elected over their peers because they are presumed to be more level-headed and reasonable than the average person. They are also supposed to represent the people and their wishes. Considering our current political climate, does this mean that our political leaders are not fit for the job? That our – the people's – wishes are to turn back the clock and attempt to relive history rather than create new chapters? Or should we be asking a completely different question: are we simply overreacting because things could be worse (like dueling, or physical assaults)?
Journalist Steven F. Hayward of the New York Times seems to think we should be asking the latter of my three questions. He claims that people who ask questions similar to the first two are "lacking perspective".
"Is political vitriol really worse today? Get a grip." Hayward states. Further into his article Hayward cites some liberal claims during the Reagan Era that Ronald Reagan himself was going to "legitimize Nazism".
Yet, despite how radical these claims are, Reagan's critics did not question the legitimacy of Reagan holding office. Congressional Republicans questioned President Obama's citizenship for years and demanded that he make his birth certificate public. This behavior is so disrespectful that is toxic to our political climate. Sure, no one is challenging anyone to a duel to the death, nor is anyone beating anyone in the House chambers, but is that what it takes call it vitriol? The nature of our conversations and norms have evolved since then, as have the basic do's and don'ts of civility.
I will agree with Mr. Hayward's sickeningly simple answer "Get a grip" on some levels. However, that is not enough. We must recognize this growing problem of mean-spirited public dialogue that claims to be political discourse. Instead of attacking each other at political rallies, committing hate crimes, overreacting to opposing points of view –- or not doing anything about those actions that we witness – each of us needs to set an example for our political leaders.
They seem to have forgotten what agreeing to disagree looks like, sounds like or feels like. Teach them that we don't need to devolve to dueling to get our points across. Get a grip.
By Julia Bernard
In 1856 a United States Senator named Charles Sumner spoke out against pro-slavery Southerners. A few days later he was beaten by a fellow congressman (Rep. Preston Brooks) on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sumner did not rejoin the Senate for a few years after this incident.
To be fair, that wasn't out of the norm at the time. In fact, up until around the mid-1800s dueling (with loaded pistols) was a respectable and honorable way of settling disagreements between politicians.
The most well-known example was the 1804 Burr/Hamilton duel. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers and the nation's first treasury secretary, over the issue of character.
To put this into perspective, it would be like Joe Biden dueling and killing Jack Lew simply because Lew questioned Biden's integrity. One leader murdering another over a disagreement. That seems unfathomable in today's society.
Yet that is hardly what you would hear in the news. There are more and more stories about the toxicity of politics and debates nowadays.
A politician is supposed to lead and represent the people. Politicians are elected over their peers because they are presumed to be more level-headed and reasonable than the average person. They are also supposed to represent the people and their wishes. Considering our current political climate, does this mean that our political leaders are not fit for the job? That our – the people's – wishes are to turn back the clock and attempt to relive history rather than create new chapters? Or should we be asking a completely different question: are we simply overreacting because things could be worse (like dueling, or physical assaults)?
Journalist Steven F. Hayward of the New York Times seems to think we should be asking the latter of my three questions. He claims that people who ask questions similar to the first two are "lacking perspective".
"Is political vitriol really worse today? Get a grip." Hayward states. Further into his article Hayward cites some liberal claims during the Reagan Era that Ronald Reagan himself was going to "legitimize Nazism".
Yet, despite how radical these claims are, Reagan's critics did not question the legitimacy of Reagan holding office. Congressional Republicans questioned President Obama's citizenship for years and demanded that he make his birth certificate public. This behavior is so disrespectful that is toxic to our political climate. Sure, no one is challenging anyone to a duel to the death, nor is anyone beating anyone in the House chambers, but is that what it takes call it vitriol? The nature of our conversations and norms have evolved since then, as have the basic do's and don'ts of civility.
I will agree with Mr. Hayward's sickeningly simple answer "Get a grip" on some levels. However, that is not enough. We must recognize this growing problem of mean-spirited public dialogue that claims to be political discourse. Instead of attacking each other at political rallies, committing hate crimes, overreacting to opposing points of view –- or not doing anything about those actions that we witness – each of us needs to set an example for our political leaders.
They seem to have forgotten what agreeing to disagree looks like, sounds like or feels like. Teach them that we don't need to devolve to dueling to get our points across. Get a grip.