this kind of polarized talking past each other, and 'at' each other, instead of 'to' each other, is not unique to Virginia <ahem> Or is this another example of same? Nancy ------- I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. --Daniel Boone On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:42 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > 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 To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html