On Civility

Treason & Civility:

Civility is getting harder to find, as Eric pointed out in the comments to the post two down from here. Consider this post from Balloon Juice, which asserts that a certain blogger who shall not be named here is a traitor to his country.

The discussion in the comments, while it is no more productive that you'd expect given such a hearty starting point for the debate, is nevertheless marked by points of civility. In particular, John Cole and Kimmitt discuss the issue well, though they don't achieve any sort of resolution. Still, it's a remarkably civilized debate given that it begins with accusations of treason.

The question is whether it is proper to have a civilized debate that begins with accusations of treason. Treason is, after all, a capital crime: if you declare in seriousness that you believe another man to be a traitor, you are calling for his death. That is not something to do lightly. In fact, it ought only to be done in deadly earnest: that is, you should really intend to see the man dead, to further his prosecution to the very point of the gallows. If you do not feel that way, you ought not to raise the charge.

And if you do, what is left to discuss?

We are coming to that binary breaking point on a number of questions. The President is accused by some of such things that, if the charges are believed, demand more than rhetoric or the organizing of a better electoral strategy for next year or three years on. The administration has occasionally been accused of fixing votes, including the 2000 election by which it came to power. The US military is accused -- here by Kimmitt, who is trying to be rational, and who is not defending the fellow accused of treason -- of operating "a network of illegal torture facilities scattered around the world!" "Our Administration kidnaps, tortures, and kills people without oversight," he continues.

If you believe that, and especially if you believe all of it, are you not called to more than blogging? To more than political donations, or organizing? To more than another empty protest march, so common and toothless that they may as well not happen at all? I don't see how anyone could believe those charges, watch the ineffectiveness of the protest movements and political opposition, and not plot insurrection. It would seem both logical and reasonable.

I support Congressional investigations when they come up, if only because that kind of oversight is the only hope we have of avoiding what otherwise appears to be a civil war in the making. Yet even that requires some faith in the institutions, which is increasingly absent and may be deservedly absent. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, for example, issued its report on prewar intelligence which all but cleared the administration. The Committee is then accused of rolling over to protect them. Is the accusation fair? Well, to be honest, none of us know: but the Senate's behavior on other occasions hardly inspires confidence. I can't think of a single time in the last year or so that I've looked upon the Senate, or most any Senator, and been proud of them or moved to confidence in their honesty and probity. Not since Zell Miller retired -- whether you liked or hated him, at least you knew he gave it to you as he saw it. Is there even one Senator you trust like that now? I can't think of one.

If the Senate Select Committee issues another report, as they are said to be preparing to do, and it also appears to give the administration a pass -- will that be enough? Why should it be? What has the Senate done to show us that its judgment is worth heeding? I believe that the Administration is not guilty of secret plots to manipulate intelligence, but I wouldn't trust the Senate if they said it even though I believed it already.

Who will we trust, then? And when we get to the point that the answer is "No one," what are we to do with a government that increasingly operates in secret? Classification activity increased 25% in 2003 alone. These increases come in the very sectors where the nation's interests are most closely touched, and where conspiracy theories are most likely to arise. If the Senate isn't trusted to perform its oversight role -- and I think it is only an honest opinion that they ought to do a whole lot more to prove they are worthy of trust -- what then?

What then, as far as I can tell, is this: those who believe that the government has been overrun by conspirators will be forced to more serious action than organization. I think they will be morally forced to it; if they really believe the charges they raise and further, they ought to be engaged in it. If I believed in those charges, I would be myself. A patriot ought to be ready to reject, by the faith of his body, the rise of tyranny in the heart of the Republic.

Insofar as that happens, those of us who do not believe the charges will be forced to defend the government. The fact that the Senate is filled with faithless politicians does not change the fact that they were duly elected. Many of us have taken oaths, and others who have not formally sworn the oaths believe in them anyway. We will do what our oaths require.

The only hope for avoiding that, I honestly believe, lies in peeling back the secrecy at least enough that we can regain confidence in the oversight. We need to be able to verify enough of the details that the Senate's pronouncements are able to be confirmed. National security still requires some secrets, but we must make sure that declassification of secrets that are no longer critical becomes a national priority. It would help, too, if we started electing leaders whose character we admired rather than whose connections to political machines were overwhelming. Perhaps blogs can help with that, by getting the word out for smaller candidates who aren't as tied-in to the machines.

Civility is more necessary than ever, if we are to have that kind of achievement. We need to be able to talk across the aisle, so that we can work together to demand of our politicians the things they don't apparently feel obligated to provide on their own: an accounting of their behavior. If at last we can no longer trust them to watch one another, we must be united in demanding that they present themselves to us. I will gladly support forcing "my" politicians to present such an accounting, if the folks on the other side will do the same for theirs.