In my experience, liberals as well as conservatives have
generated "buzz" from hot-button, emotional issues.  My
conservative friends make precisely the same kind of
accusation about the motives and tactics of their opponents as
do my liberal friends--they just point to different anecdotes
and different examples.

I think that numerous contributers to this particular
discussion have indulged in various kinds of rhetorical
fallacies, including sweeping generalizations, straw man
arguments, and ad hominem attacks.  This kind of rhetoric is
incompatible with civil, not to mention civic discourse.  It
does, however, mirror and mimic the rhetoric of much of the
Virginian public sphere prevalent today.  Who can blame the
people who argue irresponsibly here, given that they are
simply replicating the dubious strategies of public discourse
modelled in so many other places in Virginia?

It seems to me that in Virginia, a lot of what passes for
public political discourse consists of groups of likeminded
people complaining to folk who are in fundamental agreement
with them about what wicked, mean-spirited people those are
who disagree.  Whether its liberal bloggers talking to other
liberal bloggers, or conservatives complaining on talk radio
to other conservatives, the function of the conversation is to
firm up boundaries, and to demonize enemies, rather than to
advance any kind of civic compromise.  Isn't this the kind of
thing that the Founders talked about, when they worried about
the evils of faction?  Would anyone now be willing to defend
Madison's optimistic diagnosis for the ills of faction that he
defended in Federalist 10 and 51?

The conservative University of Virginia sociologist James
Davison Hunter has analyzed the "culture wars" of the 1980s
and 1990s in two superb books:  Before the Shooting Begins
(1994) and Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America
(1991).  Taken together, they remain hair-raising analyses of
the importance of sustaining a civil civic discourse.  As
Hunter notes, a necessary precondition for civil violence is
the widespread willingness of one faction to demonize those
thom they ascribe as "other."  When we walk into a
conversation expecting that those liberal (or conservative)
"lying liars" will once again be seeking opportunities to
distort the truth in favor of their illegitimate and wicked
agendas, it is very hard to have any sort of constructive
discourse.  There has been way too much demonization going on
in this conversation.

I have suggested in an earlier post that the
self-righteousness inherent in that kind of conversation is,
by the standards of reformed Christianity, deeply suspect.  I
do not doubt the sincerity of those who have posted on this
topic, but I do question the prudence of much of their
rhetoric.  The civic disfunction that our country is currently
undergoing should be disturbing to everyone on this list-serv.
 What possible good can come of bringing that disfunction to
this conversation?

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html