|
The Monica Lewinsky scandal is the best thing to happen to President Clinton since 1996.
OPINIONS ’98
Friday, 11 September 1998
Friday, 25 September 1998
Wednesday, 28 October 1998
According to the new Rules of Speech, any non-complimentary mention of a "progressive" organization indicates a complete opposition to all ideas held by that organization.
|
The Cheapening of Political Discourse
By Michael J. Ballway ’02
LAYOUT EDITOR OF THE FENWICK REVIEW
M
ost Americans, when asked what the greatest threat to American democracy, would name a specific person or group of people: The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Progressive Labor Party, various despots abroad, extremists at home, politicians in general, or some other tangible threat. A smaller group of Americans might name an "-ism": Communism, capitalism, religious fanaticism, etc. The real threat, however, is much more subtle than any of these. Perhaps the most important fundamental freedom of any democracy is freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression -- the right to assemble, speak, print, or otherwise communicate anything within reason -- democracy degenerates into mob rule or oligarchy, and from there into tyranny or despotism. Thus, in any democracy, there must be a free debate, a marketplace of ideas. The biggest threat to democracy, then, is whatever most seriously endangers the marketplace of ideas. Obviously, a free dialogue must have honesty: If any debater bases his thesis on improper data, the discussion becomes detached from the facts and turns into at best a triviality, and at worst a slander. Thus, the greatest threat to American political discourse is dishonesty. Events both on this campus and off it in the last three weeks have demonstrated, time and again, the destruction that dishonest speech wreaks on a factual dialogue. Unfortunately, a large number -- possibly a majority -- of political discussions lately have degenerated into exaggeration, demonization, and character assassination -- a devil's array of dishonest debating tactics. The new debate, unlike yesteryear's factual comparison, is a rush to establish the moral high ground, usually by discrediting one's opponent. In the recent Monica Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton's lawyers seem to have spent almost as much time labeling Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr as partisan or intrusive as they did defending their client. Sadly, this sort of behavior has become par for course in Washington, and is quickly seeping into mainstream America's cultural dictionary. Mr. Clinton's lawyers, however, even when piling the worst dirt upon their prosecutor, never approached the depths of indecency that radical groups of all kinds have been apt to employ over the last twenty years. For some reason, groups on the fringes of political debate have often found it necessary to demonize their opponents. The Progressive Labor (Communist) Party has elevated derision of the bourgeoisie, and any democratic government, to a new level, just as ultra-libertarian groups have grown paranoid and hostile toward a supposed "conspiratorial" Big-Brother government. How does the free market of expression and honesty degenerate into a shouting match of loosely-supported character assassinations? How does a respectable group turn a policy disagreement into grounds for demonization? How do normally-levelheaded people fly off the handle and go on a slanderous warpath? A recent article in the weekly purple tabloid captured this cheapening of political discourse in a nutshell. The article centered around The Fenwick Review itself, which was criticized -- without having published an issue -- for being "ultra-conservative." The Fenwick Review was also indicted for slander, anti-progressivism, homophobia, anti-multiculturalism, general disrespect, closed-mindedness, harassment, and general nogoodnikery. All this, for a campus organization barely two weeks old! It is true that The Fenwick Review mentioned, by name, a few of Holy Cross' better-known cultural and lifestyle groups in one of its advertising posters. It greatly saddens the soul that -- for some reason -- members of these groups took great offense, perhaps suffering permanent emotional damage, at the fact that The Fenwick Review was offered as an alternative to their clubs. Fortunately, however, these groups responded with anti-Review posters and speech. If it weren't for the tireless dedication to politically-correct speech on the part of the liberal leadership at the Cross, we might have had an honest political discussion on campus. Fortunately, we were able to stem that horrifying possibility through use of demonization. See how easy it is? The exaggerations of the "opposition" -- the heroes of diversity at Holy Cross, as well as the chief protagonists of the weekly newspaper's front-page article -- were more than a little disturbing to the champion of free speech in our democracy. If one examines what was said, it is nearly possible to compile a list of what sort of speech is and is not allowed on a college campus. According to the new Rules of Speech, any non-complimentary mention of a "progressive" organization indicates a complete opposition to all ideas held by that organization and all members of that organization. This is a useful bit of information; we had all better stop criticizing Kimball food, because when we do so, we denigrate our professors (who work for the same administration), and, more importantly, the views of the Jesuit order and the Catholic Church. This logic comes in handy when one's intention is to prove that a cultural organization's critic is anti-minority, homophobic, or just plain old closed-minded. The new Rules of Speech also take a restrictive view of slander. Formerly, slander entailed some form of unsubstantiated character assassination by use of wildly unjustified and greatly offensive criticisms against a relatively vulnerable person or group. The New Slander is taking a "non-progressive" political viewpoint and naming a few organizations that happen to disagree. Near the end of the front-page newspaper article in which The Fenwick Review was pilloried before even having been written, it was suggested that this publication be censored or reprimanded by the Campus Judiciary Board. One must always be careful of what one says on this campus; always agree with your debating partner, or else! This is not to say that the members liberal, cultural, and alternate-lifestyle groups on campus are demonizers at heart, or ruthless character assassins, or any of that. They are, for the most part, good people. Good people, however, through careless use of language, can do rotten things; just as our leaders in Washington take turns spitting on the Prosecutor -- or the President -- our leaders in Worcester can be captured by the spirit of the moment, attacking the latest villain with as little proof as is available. The implications of this cheapening of political discourse are grave and dark. Are we moving toward a society of extremes, where one cannot criticize a group without being accused of fighting against what that group is fighting for? In less abstract terms, is it possible -- will it remain possible -- to, for example, criticize the Republican Party while also fighting socialism? Will it remain possible to disagree politically with Jesse Helms without disrespecting all Southerners? On the flip side, will it remain possible to disagree politically with Jesse Jackson without disrespecting all African-Americans? It seems that that sort of climate is already brewing in our State and Federal capitals. Can we reclaim Holy Cross as a free-speech, honesty-in-debate zone? Is there hope that someday, somewhere, people may be able to criticize a liberal group without threat of demonization? Will we live to see the day when simple statements are not exaggerated out of proportion? If so, can our solution be applied to Washington, as well? This article appeared in the 28 October 1998 edition of The Fenwick Review, on page 7. |