(With apologies to Cardinal Newman, author of "Apologia Pro Vita Sua".)
From a post on another thread:
{{___There was a time in my memory when there was a measure of civility and respect in our nation's politics }}
Return with me now to the days of yesteryear when the supporters of one candidate reminded the voters of the rumor that his opponent was secretly supporting an illegitimate child by chanting loudly as they marched in torch-lit parades throughout this favored land:
Ma, Ma. Where's my pa?
Where's my pa, Ma?
Where's my pa?
The opposition fought torch-lit fire with torch-let fire and reminded the voters of the documented lies, fraud and corruption of the other candidate:
Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blaine!
Continental liar from the state of Maine.
"Burn this letter"!
The fraud revealed in the letter was rather normal, but the instruction in the postscript to burn the letter was a new twist that caught the public imagination.
So the man thought to have an illegitimate child was elected President of the United States. And in torch-lit parades throughout this favored land, his victorious supporters shouted the opposition chant with a new twist:
Ma, Ma. Where's my pa?
Gone to the White House!!!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
I am not a student of the subject, but undoubtedly there was a period of pseudo-civility that is now departed. The high hypocrisy of the Victorian age, the rise of literacy, the rise of newspapers and then radio which communicated in a more rational manner than sound bites are obvious suspects.
We do not like to be reminded of our slavery to our inventions. We would rather believe that it is our cultural high (or low) moral purpose that accomplishes either good or evil through our works.
{{___ but if it remains it's very hard to see. Nowadays political debate is marked by denigration, contempt and hatred of the opposition. }}
Theological debates before the Reformation featured vituperation of the opposition. Jerome famously declared that Pelagias had a head full of Scotch pudding. It is a way of making the heart felt nature of one's convictions obvious.
The test in debate is the rationality of the approach to the issues, including the aptness of the insults.
{{___ They do little to enhance the character of this country. }}
But, of course, lack of public disagreement about the doings of government effects the character of a nation in the negative way.
{{___ Indeed, I'm convinced that some see the destruction of the other party more meritorious than the security of the nation. }}
Depends the party being destroyed. The advancement of those who are obviously out to elevate the state above all other forms of authority and moral value is unlikely to make the nation more secure in any sense.
{{___ Ann Coulters style of writing and speaking is heavy on sarcasm and ridicule. }}
Sometimes that is the most effective way to bring the truth to public attention. Gilbert and Sullivan, George Bernard Shaw, etc., attacked the pretensions of the British Empire. The errors of the crypto-Marxist godlessly-religious left are much more serious and dangerous.
{{___ On the other side of the fence Howard Dean is more than her match. }}
Are you serious? This is like comparing the king of the Yahoos with the king of the satirists who invented him. Ann Coulter has similar fun playing with the enthusiastic brainlessness of the great liberalarian herd.
{{___ The end result is that our politics are plan nasty and debate on the issues get lost in the muck. }}
The issues get lost for those who (semi-consciously usually) are afraid to face them. Ann Coulters books are available for those who wish to understand her views.
Has there been anyone on the left who has written a worthwhile book since Marx and Engles?
But, of course, history as well as common sense has proven them wrong, nothing is left except sound bites promoting unreasoning prejudice against America, her President, her armed forces, Israel, …, and Ann Coulter.
