The Politics of Nastiness and the Return to Civility - What We All Can Do

When did the expression of nastiness become a form of entertainment and the dissemination of it become a multi-billion dollar industry?

Granted, clever putdowns have been with us for centuries. William Shakespeare's plays were rife with elaborate name-calling, often used as a form of brief comic relief even in his tragedies. (Think of the verbal abuse the Nurse endures in Romeo and Juliet.)

But now talk radio and TV shows, websites, even reality shows peddle viciousness and portray violent thought, speech, and even action. No names are needed -- we all know the offenders.

And though the topic may be hot right now because of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and there's talk of a "return to civility," half of what's on TV these days is gleefully uncivil -- and making big bucks for those who air it.

Case in point: this week's episode of MTV's Jersey Shore (in which the cast members go back to where it all began, Seaside Heights, New Jersey) is all about nastiness and name calling, and ends with two female roommates literally clawing at each other 's arms and faces, screaming epithets and rolling around the floor of their shared home.

It used to be that we discouraged this sort of behavior. Now advertisers are willing to pony up top dollar to have their messages wedged into commercial breaks during this type of programming.

"When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action." Those are the exact words Giffords used when expressing her fear of the now infamous Palin cross-hairs map that targeted her and her district in the 2010 election. But they could apply to any situation that employs the imagery of violence to incite, entertain, inflame, or rile people up.

Strong emotion makes us feel alive. That's why we have horror movies, roller coasters, romance novels, even porn. It's understandable why we may find it entertaining to temporarily enter into a state of fear, excitement, love, or physical arousal as a form of gratification. But to make ourselves deliberately angry and filled with hatred? Why would anybody really want to do that, and why has the taste for anger become commodified by our culture?

We all say we don't like it, but we continue to be voracious consumers of hate-based media. And while both the right and the left deny any wrongdoing -- and express condolences to Giffords and to the other shooting victims even as they avoid any semblance of contrition or personal responsibility for what happened -- the fact is that to some extent we're all to blame for what happened Saturday in Arizona. Here's why.

According to Dr. Kathleen Reardon, a Phi Beta Kappa professor of management at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business, "Each of us is at least 75 percent responsible for how others treat us." Writing for the Huffington Post, she explains that if others are disdainful and disrespectful towards us and we neglect to make it clear that we won't take it and won't put up with their attitude and tone, we are essentially sanctioning their behavior. They won't change their behavior, they'll continue to berate us and we are responsible for not standing up to them.

As Reardon notes:

This is what Americans do when they listen to shock jocks and others whose larger purpose in life is to draw attention and wealth to themselves by spewing hatred and lies.

When we don't expect support for assertions, anyone can convince us of anything. They foul our environment with vitriol seeping downward to our children where bullying is becoming more and more prevalent.

We can choose to extricate ourselves from the URPs (unwanted repetitive episodes) of vile talk. And expect the same from our leaders. First, we must notice that we're in such destructive patterns -- that we're part of the problem. Only then is it possible to take the actions necessary to end them. Does this mean doing away with criticism? It does not. Democracy depends on constructive criticism to avoid dangerous excesses. It does mean honestly distinguishing between passionate disagreements and personal attacks. It means calling on those who by distortions of fact endeavor to turn political opponents into enemies.

I'll step up to the plate and admit my own culpability. It's often easier to demonize opponents and it's a lazy form of debate. I try very hard to disagree without putdowns but it's a challenge when others don't play by the same rules. I've also let comments remain on this blog that shouldn't be there, because I don't want to curtail anyone's "free speech." But we seem to have forgotten lately that free speech has a cost -- a huge burden of personal responsibility. The worst offenders -- the nastiest posters -- are usually anonymous, never providing a valid email address. They have no interest in engaging in meaningful dialogue or finding common ground. They just want to be nasty.

Read the rest of Reardon's practical, no-nonsense article "Can Pathological Politics Be Reversed?" to see what each of us can do to move forward in a civil manner and put this nastiness behind us. Is this achievable, or are we living in a temporary state of grace -- a brief silver lining to the darkness of this weekend's shooting? Will this be the catalyst for permanent change, or will we go back to business as usual once the story disappears from the headlines?

Related article: Gabrielle Giffords Shooting - Irony & Coincidence, Integrity & Foreshadowing