Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Tucson

  • Is Civility Our Greatest Need?

    In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, much of the conversation has been about civility. I was just watching CNN as Wolf Blitzer interviewed Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona. The sheriff was asserting that the caustic atmosphere created by people making caustic political comments contributed to making Jared Loughner go out at shoot a congresswoman and a number of other people. Pressured by Blitzer, he admitted he had no hard evidence but said that’s his opinion as a veteran of law enforcement, I believe 43 years.

    Personally I get a bit nervous when someone can’t present any evidence or logic, and yet they cite their opinion based on experience. I think that if experience teaches you something you ought to be able to express it. Of course, it may be that Sheriff Dupnik is correct. The problem is that we don’t actually know that.

    Now considering that I regard civility as extremely important, why do I think this is important? Why don’t I just rejoice that people are focusing on civility as a result of this event? The reason is simple–accuracy.

    I recall listening to a hearing some years ago in which a candidate for Surgeon General was being questioned by a senate committe working on his confirmation. One of his claims to fame was a particular program to prevent teen pregnancy. One of the conservative senators asked the candidate whether the evidence showed that this program had actually prevented teen pregnancies and how many. When it came time for Senator Edward Kennedy to question the candidate he expressed dismay at that question. I was left to wonder just why it was wrong to ask for evidence of the success of a program.

    Now as I recall I liked the candidate in question, and I felt some of the questioning from conservative senators was less gracious that it should have been. Yet that was a question for which I would have liked an answer. Why? Again–accuracy. We need to know what government programs are actually accomplishing.

    And this remains my concern about the calls for civility. Yes, civility is necessary, but so is accuracy. Let’s say two candidates, A & B, produce negative ads. Given the state of political advertising, it’s highly likely that both sets of ads are inaccurate, but that’s another matter. Few people care about the accuracy of positive ads. There will be a certain amount of voter negative response because both candidates have
    “gone negative.” But evidence shows that some of the mud will stick, so candidates get value from negative ads.

    But are both candidates A & B wrong for going negative? Let’s suppose that candidate A knows something about candidate B that actually calls B’s suitability for office into question. Should A not let voters know about this? I would say that A should let people know, though he should do it accurately. Thus when candidates “go negative,” my first response is to ask two questions: 1) Is the negative information true? and 2) Is the negative information relevant? In a voting decision I’d also ask whether A has enough positives, but I ask that regarding any candidate.

    The problem, as I see it, is that we give equal weight to information being negative without first inquiring as to whether it is accurate. There are candidates who are unqualified for office. There are candidates who are morally unsuitable. If that is the case, we should be able to discuss it. I would prefer this be done by energetic and accurate media, but absent such journalism, I have no problem with the candidates doing so.

    Doubtless we will disagree as to what is a valid criticism and what is not, but again, that is the nature of political debate. In addition, I think we should do our best to present such accusations in the most civil, careful, and accurate manner possible.

    Yes, I think civility is important, but if we took more care with accuracy, I think much civility would be restored. Thus I think accuracy is a more important goal.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • In Case of Murder, Attack Some Metaphors

    I haven’t yet commented on the shootings in Tucson. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, all of them, not just those in federal service. I’m concerned when people are killed because of senseless or unnecessary violence wherever that occurs. I don’t say this to diminish the importance of an attack on a member of congress. There is a special importance to such an attack, and we should be deeply concerned. This we ought to have done, but not to have left the other undone (Matt. 23:23).

    But how should we respond? Too frequently we look for some sort of law that is going to make us completely safe from such things. But such safety, like complete safety from terrorist attacks will remain elusive. We need to reflect soberly on what will actually accomplish useful goals. I’m perfectly happy with the idea of looking at the type of weapons available and the people who can legally purchase them, though we again need to make sure that any such restrictions actually accomplish their goal.

    But then there’s the attack on certain target maps, or on certain ways of talking about one’s opponents. I think there’s a good summary of the maps over at Unsettled Christianity. They aren’t just made by one side. That’s important. But even more important, in my view, is this: They weren’t intended to incite or encourage violence.

    We use violent metaphors in much of our speech. There is even the entire Christian metaphor of spiritual warfare. Though there are some that seem to miss the metaphorical side, or the fact that spiritual warfare is not “against flesh and blood,” the vast majority of those who use this language intend no violence by it. I don’t believe that New Testament writers intended any such thing by it either.

    Now Congressman Robert Brady (D, PA) has introduced a law to prohibit certain expressions regarding public officials. One of his particular concerns is the maps I referenced above:

    “You can’t put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady said. “I understand this web site that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty” (Source).

    I don’t know about feeling a little bit guilty. I’d rather say that, under the circumstances, the makers of the map though displaying it was in bad taste. That’s their decision.

    But making a law against metaphor, which is what this is, is not going to accomplish anything. It may make people feel like they have done something. It may make people feel more secure, but it shouldn’t. Some may think it’s insensitive to oppose something like this at a time like this. Proponents of such measures count on that feeling.

    But just because a law claims that it will make us safer doesn’t mean it will. No law will make us safe from craziness or evil.

    From the same CNN article:

    As for support for the bill, Brady said, “Why would you be against it?”

    Because it simply creates more laws without providing any more safety. Because it allows us to pretend we’re solving problems when we aren’t.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta