Angry Tone Brings More of Same
- Print print this page
- Discuss 49 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
What if we could prove that talk radio and Fox News were responsible for most of the hateful political rhetoric that permeates our society?
What if Jared Loughner turned out to be a faithful Limbaugh disciple and his recent rampage were attributable to what he heard on Rush Radio? Would that make the murders in Tucson the fault of conservative pundits?
It would not. I haven’t heard Limbaugh or a Fox News commentator or even Sarah Palin say anything that’s not protected by the First Amendment. They’re entitled to their opinions, although the tone of those opinions could be less emphatic.
No, the fault is in ourselves, and in our unwillingness to weigh various points of view.
Last spring, a local businessman asked me to read a long letter he’d written to Sen. Kay Hagan detailing her many liberal shortcomings and emphatically taking her to task for all sorts of transgressions, imagined and otherwise.
As I read the letter, it occurred to me that I’d heard the words and tone of voice before — the night before, in fact. I’d watched Fox News the previous evening, and I could hear Sean Hannity’s specific language (he wasn’t attacking Hagan but liberals in general) and his angry tone in the letter I was reading.
“You heard this on Fox News, didn’t you?” I asked the letter writer.
“Yeah, I did,” he said.
I wasn’t surprised by this admission. I taught college English for more than 30 years, and I often received freshman essays that repeated the arguments and incorporated the tone — especially the tone — of conservative commentators.
When I read such an essay, I didn’t take the student to task for faulty logic; I took him to task for not doing his own thinking. I would calmly explain that what I wanted was his reasoned opinion on the topic and not the opinion of someone whose point of view he happened to overhear.
A one-sided argument will suffice when writing or speaking to persuade: Here’s what I believe and this is why I believe it — first, second, third, fourth, and so on. But a better method of persuading is to investigate the topic from both or multiple points of views: Here’s what this side believes and here’s what the other side believes and after examining both arguments, here’s what I believe and why.
The writer of the argument would then appear to be fair and logical — a reasonable human being espousing a reasonable opinion.
I’d have the student watch an old video of a debate between American atheist Madelyn Murray O’Hare and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. on the subject of prayer in the public schools. O’Hare began her argument with a litany of reasons for not allowing public prayer. When she concluded her tirade, Buckley calmly ran through O’Hare’s arguments, agreeing occasionally — “I believe you’re right about this” — and then refuting most of her points while calmly and logically explaining why he was in the right.
At the time of the debate, the Supreme Court had already ruled on prayer in the public schools and the topic was moot, but Buckley came across as reasonable and fair-minded — it was difficult not to agree with him. What sane person would side with the politically rabid O’Hare?
“Do you see how Buckley framed his argument?” I’d ask the student. “Now go back to your computer, research all the points of view and rewrite your argument using Buckley’s technique.”
As with everything in education, sometimes this approach worked, sometimes it didn’t. But when it did succeed, the student was likely to have written a more persuasive argument — and it almost always softened the tone of the essay.
Why has our national debate grown more acerbic in recent years? It’s not because our political differences have grown more pronounced — Americans have always been at loggerheads with one another — but because we don’t have the time or inclination to weigh both sides of the argument, and when arguing from only one point of view, our tone is more likely to be shrill and threatening.
And you can be sure of this: When addressing someone in an angry or sarcastic tone, you can expect the same in return.
Stephen Smith’s “A Short Report on the Fire at Woolworths” is available at The Country Bookshop. He can be reached at travisses@hotmail.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
OldSpook 2 years, 4 months ago
Well said sir. Although I must confess I have on occasion found it amusing to mock an opponent’s one-sided argument, I shall accept your counsel and try to refrain. Only when we engage logic and reason, without recrimination, can we advance. Thank you.
jamjam 2 years, 4 months ago
I'll buy in.
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
You are a one trick pony chief - head full of conservative cement!
No doubt shultz is far left - but why even bring it up? there are a plethora of far right loonies also - and I am sure you listen to most of them.
jamjam 2 years, 4 months ago
beck is a sick man chief,
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
I actually agree - all of them get very old and boring because they are only presenting one side. I would love to see both fox and msnbc get more guests with opposing views.
Easygoing 2 years, 4 months ago
I agree with your editorial. "Audi partem alteram" Saint Augustine
If you want to read some bigoted, hateful, one sided comments read just about any comment thread on a topic related to politics in the Pilot. Lots of closed minds out there.
DaveyNC 2 years, 4 months ago
My mind is open. Convince me that the leftist view is better. Pick any issue and make your argument.
hotdiggity 2 years, 4 months ago
This coming from the same person that wrote in the pilot "Do We Have To Watch It'' Dec. 22 2010. The old ''do as i say, not what i do''.
DaveyNC 2 years, 4 months ago
Nice catch. Here's a link: http://www.thepilot.com/news/2010/dec...
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"Angry tones", the latest invention in a long line of fairy tale inventions of the left. We get it, you don't like Hannity, Rush, Boortz, Savage, et al. You don't like their (conservative) point of view. But what really chaps your posterior mucosa is that they are so darn successful. It boils down to liberal jealousy. "Why can't we be successful like them" and true to liberal form, if I can't have it then nobody can. What a bunch of crybabies. You guys have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times and most big city rags but since Fox News beats them all like a rented mule "something must be done" because after all, "its not FAIR"! Sean Hannity, "angry tone"? What a joke.
jamjam 2 years, 4 months ago
really, so fax has the right to lie?
Darkwing 2 years, 4 months ago
Actually, yes, according to the Supreme Cpourt. Of course, it's not like they use that freedom any more than any of the more liberal media outlets do...:P
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
and that chef guy on tv - the crazy one's show outdraws them all..........
guess that proves the looney fringe enjoy watching people like themselves.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"You" in my above angry, hypertensive, vitriolic spewing is not intended to single out the writer or any other individual but the collective dead horse abusers.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"No doubt shultz is far left - but why even bring it up?"
Yeah, what were you thinking? Don't you know vitriol by definition is conservative in origin.
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
now now fugitive - no one ever said that. now - better change those wet panties.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
And The Beat Goes On!! Thanks for trying, Mr. Smith but it appears that this whole business is, as fugitiveguy points out, all about competition and dollars. It's not about what's right or wrong, it's evidently about who has the biggest audience, who sells the most books and who has the most capital. I should remind fugitiveguy that a lot more people watched Jerry Springer than watched Masterpiece Theater.
pinewoodnc 2 years, 4 months ago
And what a shame. What does that say about many of us??
teufelhunden 2 years, 4 months ago
&&^()$&@$^(#&(#()%&)(@@()()#!#(&&^^^
teufelhunden 2 years, 4 months ago
Sorry! Just SOOOO angry!!! lol
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
Hey, slow down there, you'll give yourself a stroke. Take deep breaths, step away from the keyboard, maybe go outside and walk around the yard. If you have access to Sirius/XM satellite radio, tune out the talk radio and tune into the Escape Channel. They play the most beautiful, relaxing music. Why in no time at all, things will look a lot better to you. The preceding message was brought to you by the fine folks out here in the middle who want what's best for all Americans.
jamjam 2 years, 4 months ago
lmao
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
You're right fugitiveguy. But it's like arguing with teenagers, isn't it.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
This may very well be unrelated to the discussions above but does anyone have a link to this video. I would really like to see that debate.
jamjam 2 years, 4 months ago
isn't that the truth. i'm such the little piggy.
ProudYankee 2 years, 4 months ago
There used to be such a thing as conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, but the terms conservative and liberal have been assigned to the nutjob fringes of politics, leaving about 60% of the population, (moderates) with little voice. Fortunately, we still have a voice at election time, only we have little choice, as politicians of both parties seem to cater to the nutjobs. This does not bode well for our society.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
Amen to that thought, ProudYankee.
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
ProudYankee, you're right, but haven't the terms also been broadened where the other side often thinks all liberals or all conservatives are nutjobs or the fringe? It's part of the attack, it seems to me. Part of the attack it seems to me is also related to the popularity of fox news and conservative radio hosts and the perceived bias of other TV channels and the print media. From my conservative angle I sense my side having alot of air time to talk the issues, but I don't see the other side talking the issues as much. Some liberals accuse some of the talk masters of fanning the flame but there are many that talk the issues. I think Bill O'Reilley for instance has evolved to where he does this more and Crane Durham, from 5-7 pm on 88.7 is especially good at this.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
The next time you watch Bill O'Reilley, count how many times he interrupts the people he is conversing with. He'll ask them to comment and then proceeds to constantly interrupt them when they are not giving him the response he wants to hear. He even does it with people he agrees with. He always does it with a smirk and a look that says: "I'm Bill O'Reilley and this is MY show." Instead of the "No Spin Zone", he should call it the "My One Way Street Zone"
native 2 years, 4 months ago
When did liberal become a "dirty word" I believe that Jesus was a liberal...
hotdiggity 2 years, 4 months ago
JESUS is GOD. A liberal is someone who wants to take care of another person's every need only because they think that person is too stupid to do it themselves.
Ross 2 years, 4 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
JER 2 years, 4 months ago
No, money is god. Jesus is that illegal alien trying to take away your job picking beans out there in the fields.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
Liberal doesn't necessarily inter dislike. Classical Liberals are actually Modern Conservatives in a majority of their ideals and beliefs. Modern Liberalism, however, is simply a more articulate form of European Socialism.
Comparing what the original liberals, of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and the Modern Liberals of today have in common is quite hard. This being such because the former was a group of strong Capitalists whereas the latter are the contrary. As to some of them being Elitist it is quite realistic(George Soros), however, I have met my fair share who are bleeding hearts and honestly want to help the world and everyone who needs their aid.
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
From Merriam.com
Conservative Synonyms: ARCHCONSERVATIVE, BRASSBOUND, BUTTON-DOWN (or BUTTONED-DOWN), DIE-HARD, HIDEBOUND, MOSSBACKED, OLD-FASHIONED, OLD-LINE, OLD-SCHOOL, ORTHODOX, PALEOCONSERVATIVE, REACTIONARY, STANDPAT, TRADITIONAL, TRADITIONALISTIC, ULTRACONSERVATIVE, UNPROGRESSIVE
Liberal Synonyms: BROAD-MINDED, NONCONVENTIONAL, NONORTHODOX, NONTRADITIONAL, OPEN-MINDED, PROGRESSIVE, RADICAL, UNCONVENTIONAL, UNORTHODOX
How many of us consider ourselves liberal, given the above? How many of us consider ourselves conservative, given the above? Do these two labels have different meanings in the context of politics?
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
You're so right, James I was wondering at the time who came up with those lists of synonyms for the dictionary? A liberal or a conservative :-)
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
"There is a deep disjunction between generations of American radicals. The older ideological LEFT-Socialist and Communist-virtually withered away during the 1950's. A New left then began slowly to take root, nourished by the pacifist socialist British New Left of the Aldermaston Marches and the NEW LEFT REVIEW; by the Beat's private disaffection from and rage at the Rat Race; by the Cuban revolution; and by the writings of C. Wright Mills, Albert Camus and Paul Goodman. This New Left blossomed dramatically in the spring of 1960 with the lunch-counter sit-ins, peace marches, capital-punishment protests, and a riot against the chief symbol of McCarthyism-the House Un-American Activiyeis Commitee....There has always been a latent anti-intellectual strain to the American character. The country's repudiation of Adlai Stevenson and the upsurge of McCarthyism in the 1950's were an expression of attitudes that go back to the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Salem Witch Trials.
The "Left" is basically preoccupied with questions of individual freedom: freedom of the very poor from arbitrary power, freedom to vote, freedom to organize, and the philosophical question itself of what freedom means.
Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago
Funny how the left today are more preoccupied with the freedom of the politician and the poor to step on the freedom of the middle class, and the middle class conservative is more about freedom for all.
And shouting your message in large font won't add any truth to it.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Gee, sorry, I don't know how that got so big, I guess I punched something by mistake. never thought I'd ever be sitting at one of these things(computers) anyway. Sorry. Those quotes were from one of my old "LEFTIE/LIBERAL BOOKS".
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Oh gee again, the author of those quotes was: Jack Newfield a former SDS member and Editor of The Village Voice.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
@ Moonchild7 First off, I believe it is incorrect to state that the left changed during the post war era because in essence, they merely changed their public expression of their ideals. C. Wright Mills, an author that Newfield mentioned, is viewed as a marxist by most modern thinkers. Paul Goodman was an anarchist, and as any rational person would conclude, a society that has no governing power would eventually lead to a totalitarian power, thus making an anarchist quite equal to a communist. Would it not? Goodman himself would later say that he disliked the New Left and felt it had been perverted.
As to Newfield's point made about the McCarthyism, I cannot agree more that such violation of rights and intellect was a hugely destructive to our country and the ideals that we represent.
And lastly to the questions that the "Left" ask themselves about individual freedom. The 2nd and 3rd the neoconservatives as well as libertarians ask the same questions and are virtually in sync with Modern Liberals. As to the first, the very poor are constantly the ever used slogan that never seems to prove its own existance. Having dealt with some of the "poor", I have too often come across those who are "poor" and will ask for discounts just before they go to smoke in the parking lot. I'm not saying that there are no truly impoverished people within our country, howevery, one must consider the many who have possessed such conditions and risen above on their own merit. As to the last question, or philosophical inquiry, the "Left" have evidently come to a conclusion which they obtained through Marx. The premise of Modern Liberalism is based up the idea that True Freedom is only achieved through the individual sacrificing himself to the needs of Society. In reality, it is a kind of paradox in many respects. To achieve freedom, one must give up his freedom and even happiness. This is the answer to the final question that the New Left seems to hold when you look at their response to almost every issue. Am I wrong? In reality, the ideology that the New Left animates is utterly unrealistic. This ideology has failed economically in Europe considering the near civil war in Greece, the violent riots in France and England. Technology in many "Western" countries such as Italy and France is archaic in many respects such as mechanical dryers and air condition, common luxuries that we are well accustomed to. Europe has experimented with a version of Modern Liberalism, and they have not faired well.
In conclusion the New Left is the same as its former self, just a different approach to the public. As to the article, I give Mr. Smith a huge commendation for I myself am fond of Buckley's clever and intellectual debate. The sad part is that such debate is not quite as enticing to the masses.
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
So well said, hunterj.
W.F. Buckley was a treasure
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Contemporary Liberalism has it's roots in FDR's NEW DEAL and LBJ's GREAT SOCIETY. It was in America's best interest to create a "National Community" that was not divided by borders, class, or color. This community and the individual can advance themselves better while working hand in hand with each other and NOT AGAINST each other. I feel that big business, monopolies, and trusts with their increased power undermines democratic government. We are in peril because of them.
Long standing nepotism in Europe is helping to put them in decline and trouble, and it will not be easy for them to change. The economies of Italy and France are especially hard hit with the youth fleeing with their college degrees in hand.
"Give flowers to the rebel failed'
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Hey! What's going on with those BIG letters? I DID NOT do that!!!!!! That's an Anarchist's Poem by the way.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
First, FDR's New Deal was America's closest move toward Socialism since its inception, once again, no real change in their aim. Modern Liberalism is responsible for the ever growing number of racial and cultural interest groups who Separate us, as a people, more than they unite us. Every time someone says, writes, or infers something that these interest groups don't like they unleash a tidal wave of smear and mud even if the comment is true. And what group do you think is the greatest recipient of campaign contributions by these interest groups? Who acts and allows these groups to continue to have power?
As to Nepotism, it hasn't been a factor in Europe since the second world war being that that was the end to most of the aristocracy there. Since then however, Socialism has become a fundamental part of their government. As to the people fleeing the country, there are population graphs that prove quite the contrary. Here: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=21&c=fr&l=en
Modern Liberalism and Socialism don't work.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
I think someone is "SABOTAGING" my posts with those BIG LETTERS. Who's doing that? Someone with the PILOT? I can't figure it out as I'm trying to type more carefully so I don't make the BIG LETTER EFFECT go off. Is it something that I say? Anyway hunterj, so wrong. Liberalism and Socialism have worked very well in America. I wrote about this many posts ago. Before the NEW DEAL America had POOR HOUSES full of people. After the NEW DEAL in the 1950's the last of the POOR HOUSES were closed. Both Social Security and Medicare brought many and still helps keep very many people out of the depths of poverty. Both the CIVIL RIGHTS protests and ANTI-WAR protests in the 60's and 70's changed us forever...for the better. Are you sure you've read American history? I don't think we read the same books and newspapers but in Italy especially and somewhat in France NEPOTISM is keeping those(and some other countries)from being able to compete as they should. They call it the "flight of the brains" in Italy. In France they just call it corruption. These articles were in the NYT and WSJ.
Darkwing 2 years, 3 months ago
The New Deal was over during WWII, and failed. The war is what rescued our economy. The New Deal by 1937 had caused more economic damage than the stock market crash.
The rising economy of the post-war boom is what closed your poorhouses. The civil rights protests were necessary and good; the anti-war protests, not so much.
Liberalism and socialism do not and cannot work - the largest purveyor of it was rife with corruption. As soviet proletariats said "continue to pretend to pay us, and we will continue to pretend to work".
Doscorova, tovarisch.
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
MC7, the causes and many of the breakthroughs you've mentioned were championed by like-minded activists who had high hopes but they have sadly been proven to be obsolete. Roosevelt and Johnson's social programs, socialized medicine, and unionization here and around the world have not stood the test of time. We will find another way and prosper again but if we really want to be "progressive" I think success will involve discarding those ideas and returning to some of the time tested lessons. We also hopefully will begin again to listen to and watch those among us who have combined bravery with drive, discipline and a respect for those who have been successful in all manner of things. I believe the gains we have made in looking out for those less fortunate will not unfairly suffer through such changes.
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
@Moonchild7
The New Deal did nothing but extend the duration of the Great Depression. Most economists now unifily agree that the New Deal extended the Great Depression by 7 years, which I mentioned in an editorial last spring. Had the New Deal not been done, it is fathomable that these "poor" people would not have suffered unemployment and poverty as long as they did. And let's not forget that it was Roosevelt as well who decided to intern thousands of innocent people into internment camps. These tactics are relative to the Alien and Sedition acts which the Federalists brought forth in the early hours of our country's birth.
As to Social Security and Medicare, they are merely crutches that ensure that the lower class is dependent upon government. How does the Left win elections but by making more promises to the lower class and the lower middleclass? Neither of the programs themselves will be sufficient much longer because as I have said, Socialism and Liberalism are not sustainable longterm.
Now, to the matter of civil rights. If you have viewed the news recently, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s nieces said that he would be on the far right if he were alive today. The Civil Rights was a movement for Reason and anyone who wasn't for it was fundamentally flawed character wise. And contrary to your belief that your anti-war protests were the first of your kind, your wrong. There were many before that during WWII and WWI but your generation was the first to spice it up with drugs. I fear that is you rather than I who is inept to our country's history.
Lastly, having many friends who live over in Italy and France, I can tell you that it is not Nepotism but Government that is killing their economy. To call an electrician, you must first call the government, have them refer you to an electrician. Even if his work is unsatisfactory, to have it redone you must call them again and hope you get a different one. That is not nepotism, but socialism. Ensuring that everyone get's their fair share no matter how good a job they do. And if there are intellectuals leaving the country, it is because these countries are Socialist. Nepotism has nothing to do with it because the state runs everything over there. Why would you continue to do a sufficient job when another person is being paid for the same job but doing it at a far lower standard than you. Socialism and Modern Liberalism is the progression of the Mediocre to obtain control. No other example is greater than the numerous Workers Unions that have destroyed business in our country and who maintain pensions for many who should have been fired long ago. Socialism calls for the petty and lethargic to control the strong.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
Do conservatives give out "BLINDERS" upon birth? I guess I am one of the few "Liberal Minded" types who have been and continues to be extremely successful both personally and professionally. My son also was brought up with "the liberal mindset" and he continues to prosper in NYC no less. Not bad for a "Carolina Boy." He has a lot of "less fortunate friends" who have some trouble coping with the realities of life(and a lot of them are also professionals). Hard work and truth seems to confound them. Some who also have very unfortunately already died too young. I NEVER hid anything from him. There were no secrets ever; no hypocrisy, lies, or misleading realities told. As seems to be the conservatives number one lesson they teach to their children. What are "the time tested lessons", exactly? And no nepotism in Europe? When the state calls what do you think is their first question? Are you Italian? Are you French? hunterj, go back and read my previous posts. There's a great amount of history in them that I think you need to learn. FAST!
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
I grew up in the same enviroment and I am doing quite well. To blame a way of "Parenting" on conservativism is ridiculous. There are both types of parents on the both sides of the isle and to not address it is to disreguard fact. There will always be people who work hard and those who don't, however in my experiences, I have come across some very lethargic and lazy liberals who don't like to work more than I do conservatives.
And I'm afraid I am not understanding your question of the first question as State will ask me. And no I'm not Italian nor French quite honestly and happily. Were I, I believe I would not likely want to admit it. And every piece of "history" that you have mentioned I have proved wrong or mangled by your ideology. I study history and am probably far well versed than you are. I suggest you try and understand it with multiple sources, not just a college textbook.
nothingspecial 2 years, 4 months ago
MC7, you have not completely tackled the art of open-mindedness as you claim. Conservatives do know how to read and you undoubtably would go into shock if you saw how openminded they actually are. I feel like I'm being characterized as one of the villians in a Billy Jack movie. I've sure said enough.
hotdiggity 2 years, 4 months ago
Would not the word 'nepotism' best describe the whole Kennedy Family of Massachusetts in politics. Joseph Kennedy actually recommended that England sue for peace with Hitler. He was quickly withdrawn as the U. S. Ambassador to England.
MikeNC 2 years, 4 months ago
@ Native: Jesus would never be pro choice. He'd want a baby, whether black white, red or yellow to have the right to live. Diane
Ross 2 years, 3 months ago
hey Mike - I would love being anti abortion - IF you and all the "moral" conservatives promise to adopt these newborns and care for them until they are 18.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
I'm not open minded? That's a joke right? I just let life flow and wait for the repercussions more or less. But if the repercussions are very serious ones then I try to do something about them. I did not blame the "conservative way of parenting" as being a bad way of parenting. After all it created ME!!!!!! And I'm a pretty good, decent, hard working, loving, caring, intelligent, and OPEN-MINDED, person. I tended to disagree with all of the conservatives in my family though so it was a thrill ride of contentious debates and arguments from about the age of 12(the Beatles album "REVOLVER" changed me forever). Don't start on anything about Jesus.
fugitiveguy 2 years, 4 months ago
"I'm not open minded?"
Well since you asked, no.
moonchild7 2 years, 4 months ago
...and your definition of an open-minded person is....what?
huntrJ 2 years, 4 months ago
Most probably a person who is guided by Reason, possibilities, and evidence. Not a person guided by emotions and the sways of society.