Temperature Rising

This weekend, I tried to refrain from thinking about the realm of politics and the direction of our Nation by pouring my energies into prepping and priming the walls of my upstairs bonus room. I may not be a master craftsman (not even close), but there is a certain amount of pride in paying attention to detail and doing a job well, not to mention the masculine rush that comes with home repair and improvement. I ask for help (and hire experts) when I need to, but I'd much prefer to do it myself. You learn by doing, so to speak.

But alas, even as I immersed myself in finishing some drywall repair and priming the closet yesterday, in the back of my mind I continued to ponder recent events surrounding this healthcare debate and the deteriorating level of political discourse. Whereas there are unhinged, screaming partisans on each side of the aisle who speak not out of reason or logic but out of unpersuadable anger, it is a frightening prospect to witness this same behavior out of elected officials. Perhaps it is true that the political class is merely a reflection of the public at large. Debate is not about politely arguing the merits of a thing, it is now about defeating and humiliating your opponent. And when you have power, the less debate the better. Look no further at the townhall meetings that members of Congress are having with their constituents this summer. Consider the video linked in this piece in the Washington Times. Or consider this video about the happenings in St. Louis.

Glenn Reynolds has a column in today's Washington Examiner that reflects on the state of dialog and the shifting acceptance of what constitutes patriotic dissent (emphasis mine):

"Civility is fine, but those who demand it should show it. The Obama administration -- and its corps of willing supporters in the press and the punditry -- has set the tone, and they are now in a poor position to complain.

Whether they like it or not -- and the evidence increasingly tends toward "not" -- President Obama and his handlers need to accept that this is a free country, one where expressions of popular discontent take place outside the electoral process, and always have. (Remember Martin Luther King?)

What historians like Gordon Wood and Pauline Maier call "out-of-doors political activity" is an old American tradition, and in the past things have been far more "boisterous" than they are today.

Rather than demonizing today's protesters, perhaps they might want to reflect on how flimflams and thuggishness have managed to squander Obama's political capital in a few short months, and ponder what they might do to regain the trust of the millions of Americans who are no longer inclined to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt."

I am not an activist, but I do have strong opinions. Sometimes I voice them, but I try to so respectfully. But the temperature is rising. I see it in the office; I've seen it in the church. Righteous anger and action over legitimate injustice may sometimes result in peace and a just solution. But the anger we have witnessed over the last decade does not strike me as righteous, but rather a pernicious rage that threatens to consume otherwise reasonable people. De-escalation is unlikely, because our citizenry seems to have accepted adversarial posturing as the norm. Today, it is countercultural to be calm, dignified and courteous. It is also hard - intelligent conversation with an angry individual is difficult, if not impossible. I would like to believe that things will calm down eventually. I would like to have hope and faith that this Nation of ours can rise above this. I would like to be able to trust in the Office of the President, and those who occupy that position. But what am I to think when my President speaks like this about those who disagree with him?



And this from the lead editorial in the Examiner:

"We are witnessing something terribly ugly in America this summer. Obama is leading a campaign to shift our peaceful democratic process away from civil discussions of programs and candidates to using the power of the state to bully those who oppose the majority party's policy proposals. The threat may be as subtle as the fear of being reported by a neighborhood informant to the White House, or as overt as stick-wielding union toughs who might not approve of the way you ask your congressman a question."

A cooling off period would benefit everyone. Both sides of the political aisle have been warring for at least the past two decades. It's not uncommon in our history. But in the information age of instant media and full participation across the economic spectrum, any sign of truce will immediately be seen as weakness and will prompt the aggressor to exploit the moment. Tactics employed by the current administration makes them valid for use by the next administration. What foundation for trust remains?

I don't have to like a party's agenda. Elections have consequences. But true political discourse should have some ground rules. We do not elect our representatives to lord over us. We elect them to represent us, and the best interests of our Nation.

On this Sunday afternoon, I find myself wrestling with my thoughts and fears of the longevity of our Republic. And the conflict within rests on two mutually exclusive requests that somehow seem bound together in this moment:

On the one hand: Dona nobis pacem.

On the other: "Don't Tread on Me."