President George H.W. Bush says presidents are “entitled to civil treatment and intellectual honesty when it comes to critics” and that harsh criticism “should not be par for the course. To the degree it turns off one student or one person from serving that’s bad.”

Now, I fully agree that the 24/7/365 political combat that is the byproduct of cable news (or, as Bush puts it, “the cables”) and the Internet has corrosive effects.  So, too, does the permanent campaign that grew out of that environment. He’s right, too, that it this poisonous atmosphere has likely turned some good people away from public service.

I’m not sure what to do about any of this, however.  The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to free political expression and the nature of instantaneous communication free of gatekeepers is such that incivility is almost a given.  And, surely, the fact that some student — or, even, lots of them — will shy away from politics isn’t sufficient reason to regulate speech.

So, if Bush the Elder is merely expressing his frustration at the way things are — or even calling on people to think about the effects of their style of communication — it’s all well and good.  If he’s saying government should “do something” about it, I respectfully disagree.

MSNBC video via The Swamp

An interesting sidebar to the debate sparked by the leak of General McChrystal’s Afghanistan strategy review is the question of how such debates should take place to begin with.

Peter Feaver complains that the president has been rushed by leaks.  Pat Lang is irked by the fact that the likely leaker wore a military uniform, possibly even a general’s stars.

Meanwhile, Marc Lynch thinks the “strategy review” was conducted by people without the proper expertise precisely for the purpose of reaching the conclusions it did and Andrew Exum complains that the war’s critics aren’t offering similarly serious analyses.

In my New Atlanticist piece “Debating Afghanistan: Beyond the McChrystal Leak,” I examine all these arguments and more, concluding,

Yes, one might prefer that debate take place according to a set of rules from a fabled age of civility, where politics stopped at the water’s edge, generals were unfailingly deferential to civilian political leadership, and nothing was ever leaked to the press.   But, alas, it will take place in the real world.

Much more at the link.

Photo: Scoop44.

In his Daily Beast debut, Alex Massie rises in defense of Joe Wilson’s outburst. No, not so much whether Obama was lying in this particular instance but rather the very notion that it’s “inappropriate” to heckle the president.  The whole piece is worth a read but here’s a taste:

Trivial though it may seem, this brouhaha highlights a great flaw in the American system: You elect a monarch. In olden days and on the old continent, criticizing the monarch might limit your life chances. So too, alas, in the American capital today, as the arbiters of acceptable Washington indecency—that is, the Davids Broder and Gergen—decry your shortage of civility and surfeit of vulgarity.

The convention that Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of the President in His Presence elides the great difference known to every Briton—that between insulting the head of state and insulting the mere head of the executive branch of government.

Insulting Queen Elizabeth is one thing; insulting Gordon Brown is practically an obligation. Disrespecting the former is an act of treason; disrespecting the latter and his office, a necessity: Every Wednesday, Brown must endure Prime Minister’s Questions, during which his enemies in Parliament grill him. Prime Minister’s Questions may not be the be all and end all, but it affords an opportunity for “telling truth to power” that does not exist in the regal American system.

America’s problem is that it has combined the head of state and the head of the executive branch into a single office, and it can no longer distinguish between the two roles. Obama’s health-care address was not given in his role as head of state. It was, rather, a political speech made by—pinch yourselves—a mere politician seeking to advance his own political agenda.

He makes a very good point here, extending the argument Alex Knapp makes in Bring Heckling to the Colonies! And, as a matter of principle, I agree.  Of course Wilson has a right to call Barack Obama a liar.  But there’s a time,  place, and manner for everything and an address to a joint session of Congress is not the appropriate venue.

The more I think about it, though, the idea of the president calling Congress together to give them their marching orders on health care is inappropriate.  I’m not calling out Obama here; he’s merely following recent precedent.  But, aside from the annual State of the Union address (which, frankly, I’d be happy to see return to its written message to Congress format) and genuine national emergencies such as the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks, the very format is a bad idea.  It’s yet another way that we reinforce the mistaken notion that the president is “the boss” and that Congress has an obligation to carry out his agenda.

Presidents have the bully pulpit by the nature of their office and can easily get their message to the people whenever they want.  But let’s do away with him calling the elected representatives of the people together and lambasting them for not doing what he wants.

The big news surrounding President Obama’s latest heathcare speech is that South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” in response to the claim that illegal immigrants would not be covered under universal coverage:

AP (”Obama heckled by GOP during speech to Congress“):

The nastiness of August reached from the nation’s town halls into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as President Barack Obama tried to move his health care plan forward.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” after Obama had talked about illegal immigrants. It wasn’t the only interruption during Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress in the House of Representatives. Earlier, Republicans laughed when Obama acknowledged that there are still significant details to be worked out before a health overhaul can be passed.

Wilson’s outburst caused Obama to pause briefly before he went on with his speech. Overhead in the visitors’ gallery, first Lady Michelle Obama shook her head from side to side.

Carl Hulse, NYT (”In Lawmaker’s Outburst, a Rare Breach of Protocol“):

In an angry and very audible outburst, Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, interrupted President Obama’s speech Wednesday night with a shout of “You lie!”

His eruption — in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants — stunned members of both parties in the House chamber.

Democrats said it showed lack of respect for the office of the presidency and was reminiscent of Republican disruptions at recent public forums on health care. “It is outrageous,” said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who said it reminded him of the “antics that are being used to disrupt and fog what is going on.” After the speech, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who sat a few rows in front of Mr. Wilson, said he immediately approached senior Republican lawmakers to encourage them to identify the heckler and urge him to issue an apology quickly. “No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said. Other Democrats said they did not want to dwell on the outburst or allow it to overshadow what they saw as an effective address by the president. But they also said it bolstered their contention that some Republicans were not interested in constructive dialogue, and they noted that Democratic plans specifically barred coverage for illegal immigrants.

Republicans also said the heckling was out of line. “I think we ought to treat the president with respect,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, “and anything other than that is not appropriate.”

Mr. Wilson seemed rattled in the wake of his comment, and quickly left the chamber at the end of the speech. His office later issued an apology, saying: “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.” Mr. Wilson also phoned the White House and reached Mr. Emanuel, who accepted an apology on behalf of the president.

Critical body language and murmurs of disapproval are typical at presidential addresses and part of the political theater. But members of both parties were trying to recollect such a pointed attack from an individual lawmaker at a presidential address and noted that a similar remark could draw a formal reprimand if delivered at a routine session of the House.

The apology was appropriate and, I’m guessing*, sincere.  Such outbursts are inappropriate in civil debate, let alone when directed at the only elected representative of the nation as a whole.  Bill Clinton was treated with more respect while under formal impeachment charges.

While Wilson’s frustrated cry was inexcusable, however, it’s at least understandable.   After all, Obama was indirectly calling him a liar.  And being untruthful.  From the speech:

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.  [emphasis added]

This, incidentally, was the from the prepared remarks, not off-the-cuff flourish.  The president was deliberately poisoning the well, claiming that his opponents are dishonorable and ill-intentioned.  And, as AllahPundit and Mark Tapscott point out, the bill will of course cover illegal aliens.   Even the Congressional Research Service says so.

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.” CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.

Indeed, as an Obama official interviewed on NPR this morning admits, the administration has moved the ball in the other direction, removing existing restrictions requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to get various federal benefits on the grounds that they were too onerous and causing those legitimately eligible to give up or be denied.  That may well be the right thing to do (I don’t know the specifics well enough to render definitive judgment) but it nonetheless vitiates the claim that there’s some magic wall to prevent the twelve million-odd illegal aliens from gaining access.

Beyond that, simple logic tells you that illegal aliens will be covered under any system of universal coverage.  Aside from the plain meaning of the word universal,  we have laws in this country requiring unquestioned treatment at emergency rooms for anyone who shows up.  The Supreme Court ruled more than a quarter century ago in Pyler v. Doe that the Equal Protection Clause requires that children of known illegal aliens be given free elementary and secondary education in public schools.  It’s hard to justify a rationale that requires paying to educate children while denying them health care.

UPDATE: Phillip Klein points to a 2005 Media Matters piece noting that Congressmen expressing displeasure with presidents by booing has been going on for some time.  I suppose yelling, “You lie!” is worse than booing but it’s worth noting that the idea of Congress as a bastion of civility is being  oversold.

UPDATE 2: Via Taegan Goddard, I see that PolitiFact has a longish piece arguing that “Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn’t apply to those here illegally. We don’t find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama ‘lied.’ We rate Wilson’s statement False.”  I invite you to read it for yourself but I find it unpersuasive.

Politifact misapprehends how our system works, operating from the premise that laws only do what they specifically say.  And since the law doesn’t say illegal aliens are covered, QED, they aren’t.  In reality, new entitlements operate in a very complex existing ecosystem.  Unless the law not only excludes illegal aliens but provides very strong provisions for actually doing so — and it does not — the reality is that illegal aliens will be covered.

______________
*Before this morning, the only “Joe Wilson” I knew was married to Valerie Plame.  I gather from the news accounts, though, that he was surprised and flustered by the outburst and embarrassed at the spectacle he’d created.

Lane Hudson felt justified in interupting former President Bill Clinton’s remarks at Netroots Nation to scream questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that there was no Q&A session scheduled and he was therefore “being held as a captive audience.”

Julian Sanchez, also in attendance and quite sympathetic to Hudson’s views on both DADT and DOMA, demurs:

No, you spectacular dick,  you were not being “held as a captive audience”; you were voluntarily attending a talk where the speaker had declined to allot time for questions. Believe it or not, there were probably one or two other people there with strong feelings about any number of other matters. Being what we call “grown ups,” however, they were not so convinced of their righteous specialness that they imagined themselves entitled to set the speaker’s agenda like some jackass fratboy screaming “Freebird” at the band. I realize it seems shocking that some of your fellow audience members were more concerned about norms of civility than your most-important-issue-evar, but the fact that everyone has one of those is why we have norms of civility. The only reason it was possible for you to be rewarded for your boorishness by getting your question addressed is that you had the good fortune to be surrounded by people who were housebroken.

Quite.

Clinton does quite well handling the interruption and defending his position.  And he’s right:  In 1993, I was firmly against changing the policy on gays in the military and thought DADT was an outrageous concession to political correctness; now, I think it’s time to let gays serve openly.  Ditto, gay marriage.

While my political philosophy has no doubt evolved over the past sixteen years, it’s mostly a matter of the culture having changed through learning.  For Americans outside a handful of urban communities, gays were a theoretical construct or the object of jokes on television.  Now, they’re a small but visible part of the culture and, aside from a fringe Queer Pride element that enjoys the attention that provocativeness brings, pretty damned normal.

Soldiers are drawn from the society-at-large if not quite a microcosm of it. The military culture naturally lags the broader culture because it’s self-selected and more traditional in its values.   If the military leadership isn’t quite ready to end DADT, they soon will be.

And gay marriage will become normal, too, now that it’s taking place in several states.  The idea that gays marrying each other is somehow a threat to the marriages of heterosexuals already seems silly.  The resistance of the religious community will take longer to break down but it’ll happen.  Probably in less time than the sixteen years since DADT threatened to end the Clinton administration before it got started.

Mark Tapcott hath a point:

[I]n a Beltway Confidential post Tuesday, I asked what is the difference between folks on the Right calling the eight Republican House members who voted for Obama-Waxman-Markey the “cap-and-traitors,” and the infamous “General Betrayus” ad bought by the Left’s Moveon.org in The New York Times.

In no time at all, comments variously described your humble servant as a “moron,” a spreader of “piffle,” a “clueless knave or a fool,” and “a boil on journalists’ butts,” among much else. A few folks offered reasonable contrary arguments, but the clear verdict of most was that I am either incredibly stupid, or I’ve ingested an overdose of MSM fairy dust.

[...]

The fundamental problem here is that substituting personal invective for logic and fact points to the disappearance of a key aspect of republican virtue – putting the pursuit of truth in public debate before self-aggrandizement, also known as moderation or temperance.

It also signifies the continuing corruption of public language. Contrary to the deconstructionists among us, language is crucially important in a republic because it enables rational consideration of alternatives. Dismissing a proposal out of hand because it comes from a “moron” denies the possibility of logical argumentation and poisons the reasonable discourse required for a republic to function peacefully.

[...]

Usually with Reagan it was “our opponents,” or “the other side.” He was always a gracious speaker and a superb debater, quick to refute specious arguments or personal attacks with facts and logic. Reagan was tough, but he was a gentleman and an honorable adversary.

Reagan steadfastly avoided using personal opprobrium as a substitute for facts and reason because he refused to demean himself or his cause by diving into the gutter with others who were all too eager to hurl themselves and others there.

It’s not uncommon these days to hear suggestions that Reagan is no longer relevant. But his example of extending courtesy and respect to opponents – including those who don’t deserve it – is relevant for all time because it’s the right thing to do.

Mark’s piece may well overstate the degree to which the right has been more honorable in its debating tactics over the years than the left.  There’s certainly been a long history of coded language implying that the other side is less loyal to the country, less moral, less likely to have good personal hygiene, and so forth.  Then again, maybe having the decency to couch such charges in code words is a mark of civility.

Regardless, Mark’s quite right that respectful debate is both good for the republic and good manners.  I’d like to see more of it.

Photo:  US News

“If the trans community really does want to help educate, inform and guide public policy, as they should, a little less fury, derision and anger might help.” – Andrew Sullivan

He’s responding to a rather harsh email correcting him on the facts on the effects of male-to-female gender reassignment surgery on athletic performance but, really, it could apply equally well to a large swath of the political blogosphere.

John Hawkins explains “How the Internet Damages Our Culture,” arguing “American society as a whole, and politics in particular, has become considerably ruder, cruder, and more paranoid than it used to be.”  Stacy McCain counters that the Internet is just going where television has already taken us.

I challenge the premise.

There’s no doubt that our popular discourse is cruder in some ways — the acceptable use of profanity in public spaces, for example — than it was even when I was a kid.  On the other hand, we’re less rude in crude in other ways, such as our expression toward women, racial minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others.

The complaint that our politics is less civil than it once was is, well, as old as our politics.    Scan through, for example, David Shields‘ Civil Tongues and Polite Letters in British America (1997).

Like the 1990s, the 1790s were obsessed with civility — in terms of cultural adequacy compared to Europe, in reaction to the rancorousness of politics, in contrast to the rudeness of native peoples, and in terms of the relations of the sexes in public places (xxi).

The 1990s were indeed apparently obsessed with civility, as George James published a NYT oped the same year on “The Vulnerable History of Incivility.”  He reminds us that,

When Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the mid-1830’s, Professor Barber said, he was impressed with ”the local spirit of liberty” and the ”powerful participation” of citizens in local government, whether at a New England town meeting or a gathering of settlers at a frontier fort.

He quotes Benjamin Barber:

”Divisive rhetoric has become not only disagreement between parties but a rejection of the legitimacy of the other side, validating a position that your opponents are immoral, un-American and possibly worthy of being subjected to violence,” he said. Opponents become ”enemies of the Republic and the political process itself.”  Professor Barber added, ”We’ve seen the results at abortion clinics, in the far right militia movement and in Oklahoma City.”

While that sounds ominous, one only has to recall the frequent rioting and lynchings of the colonial and immediate post-colonial period for perspective.   Similarly, the illegitimacy of opponents was hardly invented a decade ago, as the viciousness of the 1800 presidential campaign, canings on the Senate floor, the Nullification movement, and the Civil War make clear.

Indeed, James Parton’s account of “The Presidential Election of 1800,” written in the July 1873 (no, that’s not a typo) Atlantic Monthly, is quite instructive.

That product of the human intelligence which we denominate the Campaign Lie, though it did not originate in the United States, has here attained a development unknown in other lands. It is the destiny of America to try all experiments and exhaust all follies. In the short space of seventy-seven years, we have exhausted the efficiency of falsehood uttered to keep a man out of office.

[...]

Thomas Jefferson, who began so many things in the early career of the United States, was the first object upon whom the Campaign Liar tried his unpracticed talents. The art, indeed, may be said to have been introduced in 1796 to prevent his election to the Presidency; but it was in 1800 that it was clearly developed into a distinct species of falsehood.

[...]

He was able, of course, to prove that Mr. Jefferson “hated the Constitution,” had hated it from the beginning, and was “pledged to subvert it.” The noble of New York (Hamilton, apparently) writing in Noah Webster’s new paper, the Commercial Advertiser, soared into prophecy, and was thus enabled to describe with precision the methods which Jefferson would employ in effecting his fell purpose. He would begin by turning every Federalist out of office, down to the remotest postmaster. Then, he would “tumble the financial system of the country into ruin at one stroke”; which would of necessity stop all payments of interest on the public debt, and bring on “universal bankruptcy and beggary.” Next, he would dismantle the navy, and thus give such free course to privateering, that “every vessel which floated from our shores would be plundered or captured.” And, since every source of revenue would be dried up, the government would no longer be able to pay the pensions of the scarred veterans of the Revolution, who would be seen “starving in the streets, or living on the cold and precarious supplies of charity.” Soon, the unpaid officers of the government would resign, and “counterfeiting would be practiced with impunity.” In short, good people, the election of Jefferson will be the signal for Pandora to open her box, and *empty* it upon your heads.

Blame it on the Internet, I suppose.

Alan Jacobs: “Nothing could better justify Ross’s decision to start moderating comments on his blog than the comments on the announcement itself.”

For those who don’t click links, Ross Douthat has announced that, “From now on, one of the Atlantic’s crack interns will be going through the comment threads at the end of every business day, deleting any comments that run afoul of our comments section’s terms of service” and that, furthermore, “I’ve instructed him to err on the side of deletion if he’s uncertain about whether a comment crosses the line.”  Apparently, said intern has quit, misunderstood the instructions, or lives in a different time zone.

Lacking an intern, I’m rather sporadic and inconsistent in enforcement of OTB’s site policies.  I do, however, heartily support the idea of enforcing some modicum of civility in discussion threads.  For popular blogs or highly trafficked posts, however, it’s almost an effort in futility. This diagram, credited to the “New York Times via Ed Philp,” is about right:

This is a subject we’ve discussed before.  Many times.  Oddly, it seems to be a particularly popular topic in July:

• Comments on Blogs (July 6, 2004)
• Blog Comments II (July 7, 2004)
• Comments on Blogs: Left vs. Right (February 1, 2005)
• Washington Post Blog Shuts Off Comments (January 20, 2006)
• Glenn Greenwald’s IP Address Stolen (July 20, 2006)
• Bloggers and Real Life (July 29, 2006)
• Commenting Quality on Blogs (February 11, 2007)
• Blog Polarization and Self-Segregation (July 1, 2008)

Today’s Manufactured Outrage of the Day* is that, on a mid-day Fox News program featuring Megyn Kelly and Michelle Malkin debating the impact of Michelle Obama on the race, the production assistant in charge of writing chyrons dubbed the would-be first Lady “Obama’s Baby Mama.” Apparently, this is a racial slur which suggests that she and Obama aren’t actually married and the children are illegitimate and therefore they should just head on back to Africa. Or something like that.

Salon’s Alex Koppelman has the most linked story about this on memeorandum and he’s got a video of the segment and the above screencap, which I’ve appropriated. Otherwise, he’s in Just the Facts, Ma’am mode. His colleague, Joan Walsh, is more apoplectic, bringing out the 1990s catchphrase “Oh, No They Didn’t” to show her hip displeasure.

Where do you even start when criticizing Fox’s slur? Do you try to explain that “baby mama” is slang for the unmarried mother of a man’s child, and not his wife, or even a girlfriend? Are they racist, or just clueless? Isn’t there racism even in their cluelessness, if somebody didn’t know what “baby mama” means, but used it anyway? Even at Fox, won’t somebody have to apologize? Am I wasting my time even thinking about that?

Yes, actually.

Oliver Willis helpfully suggests, “Hey Fox News, Just Call Her A N***** And Be Done With It, Okay?”

So here’s the thing (because during this campaign I’m apparently learning that we black people have our own secret code and hand signals so this stuff has to be explained like you are speaking to a child at times), using the phrase “baby mama” to describe this woman implies that like too many people in the black community, she is a mother on her own with no man around doing his job.

Except, Barack and Michelle Obama are the exact opposite of this, and that is one of the reason America – especially black America – are so proud of them.

They’ve raised their children? Electing them to the White House is the least we can do!

Michelle Malkin, who was on air at the time and has nothing to do with writing the “Obama’s Baby Mama” chyron that appeared below her, doesn’t know what’s up with that.

I don’t know if the caption writer was making a lame attempt to be hip, clueless about the original etymology of the phrase, or both. But I do know that it was Michelle Obama herself who referred to Barack as her “baby’s daddy” and has used the phrase “baby daddy” to describe Barack while on the stump this year.

I’m going with “both.” Malkin also provides a helpful link to a two-year-old Slate piece with the awkward headline “” that explains that celebrity gossip rags have “seized upon baby-daddy and baby-mama, two useful terms that have long appeared in hip-hop and R&B lyrics, and are slowly stripping them of their emotional fangs.” Apparently, such black luminaries as Tom Cruise and Keven Federline had been referred to as “baby-daddy” even though they were married to the mother of their child.

So, perhaps Fox was secretly signaling that the Obamas are Scientologists?

UPDATE (Alex Knapp) I don’t usually weigh in on this sort of thing, but I have to disagree with my colleague James on this one–Fox’s caption on here is enormously disrespectful. I wholeheartedly agree with this portion of sci-fi author John Scalzi’s take on the matter:

Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News have a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to a) remind you the Obamas are black, b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men.

If we still had such a thing as civility and manners in this country, Michelle Obama would be referred to in the media as “Michelle Obama” or “Mrs. Obama”. Even if there was no racial intent on the part of Fox News, using the phrase “Baby Mama” for the wife of the Democratic nominee for President just shows no class, decorum, or manners.

UPDATE (James Joyner) I agree with Alex and with Steven Taylor that “Michelle Obama” or “Mrs. Obama” would be preferable and avoid the these sort of controversies. My strong guess — and I admittedly don’t know anything about this particular program or its tendencies — is that this was an attempt at “hip” and “cutesy” that backfired.

I much prefer my news without the hip and cutesy, thank you. You report, I decide and all that. But that’s a criticism of the Oprahization of the news rather than of Fox in general or this gaffe in particular.

____________

*If someone with better PhotoShop skills than I submits a graphic I like for this, I’ll use it henceforth, crediting the creator.

One of the major strains of reaction to Barack Obama’s “More Perfect Union” speech is that those who are not persuaded by it are therefore racist or at least unreasoning fools. Poisoning the well in this manner may be an effective rhetorical device but it undercuts the very message of the speech, which is that race remains a very complicated issue in American culture and that we must tolerate a wide range of expressions on the subject.

Andrew Sullivan began sowing the race seed before the speech and after it adds “some are immune to the grace and hope and civility that Reagan summoned at his best; the anger and bitterness is so palpably fueled by fear and racism it really does mark a moment of revelation to me.”

Steve M. argues that “the premises [the speech] lays out require you to be an adult, and I’m not convinced that most Americans are adults, at least when looking for a candidate to support.”

Barbara O’Brien seconds this:

I think the question about the speech, articulated by Rachel Maddow on David Gregory’s new MSNBC program, is whether white America will step up and receive the speech in the same spirit in which it was given. Obama’s speech was challenging. He assumed that his audience could hear his words and and think about them. He assumed people could get beyond simple narratives, sound bytes, and jerking knees.

Glenn Greenwald adds,

But in Obama’s faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press. Even Americans who authentically believe that they want a “new, better politics” may be swayed by the same old Drudgian sewerage because it is powerful and ubiquitous.

Finally, Michael Froomkin observes, “whether this is Obama’s breakthrough moment, as it deserves to be, or his Adlai Stevenson moment depends on two things: first, whether the gatekeepers of old media, few if any of whom are friendly to Democrats, allow his rich and complex statements anywhere near a voter. . . . The second chance comes from the Internet, which allows the candidate to bypass the filter. But will anyone outside the choir come to hear the preacher?

Now, I think all of these writers are expressing their honest frustration that Obama’s message won’t get through. And, fundamentally, I agree that it’s difficult to make an argument in paragraph form in a venue dominated by the sound byte. At the same time, however, it’s difficult to argue that people interested in hearing or reading Obama’s speech don’t have plenty of avenues for doing so.

The fact that we live in a sound byte world requires that those wishing to get their message out adapt their strategy accordingly. Obama has done so masterfully. Indeed, he’s light years ahead of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain in this regard. While he has detailed policy platforms available to those who want them, he’s built his campaign around bumper sticker slogans. That frustrates those who are trying to beat him with more nuanced messages but that’s too bad.

Unless he’s a much dumber tactician than I give him credit for, Obama knew full well that yesterday morning’s speech was merely the beginning of a dialog. Even those of us who are political junkies mostly missed the live presentation, given that it was delivered during peak working hours. But opinion leaders have or will read and/or listen to the speech and talk about it for the next week or more.

Like Greenwald, I viewed the Wright controversy as “relatively petty.” But others have the right to disagree.

Obama’s youth, energy, charisma, and oratorical skill could easily propel him to the White House. I wouldn’t be shocked if he won several states that went “Red” in 2000 and 2004 and thus contributed to a realignment of American politics. But a personality based campaign can implode if people doubt the character of the candidate. Fundamentally, this is a visceral issue rather than an intellectual one. Either you trust Obama and regard him as a uniting force or you don’t. And falling into the latter camp doesn’t make you venal or stupid.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum disagrees on two scores:

As good as Obama’s speech was, it’s naive not to also understand it as the political tool it was meant to be. And on that score, I’d say that the Obama supporters James points to are doing precisely what Obama intended: trying to take Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary comments off the table by implying that anyone who still insists on talking about them must be either a simpleton or a racist. He’s basically daring the Sean Hannitys of the world to continue demagoging Wright, and making a savvy bet that the rest of the press will line up behind him to agree that the real issue isn’t Wright, it’s racism and its complex historical legacy. And anyone who doesn’t agree is either a partisan hack or a hopeless primitive.

If so, it’s a losing bet. Calling half the country simpletons and racists is not a way to win an election. It may stifle the debate, because of the powerful chilling effect of the race card in American political discourse, but it’ll resonate quite differently in the privacy of the voting booth.

Obama has embraced Wright while distancing himself from his most incendiary comments. That’s fine. But people have a right not to be satisfied with a very convoluted explanation about why he sat in those pews for two decades.

On James’s second point, though, I disagree. I think Obama’s fervent hope is that his speech pretty much closes the issue of race in this campaign. It just flatly doesn’t help him in any way to keep it on the front burner. Like NAFTA, which dropped off the radar after Ohio, I expect that after a couple of days Obama will also drop the subject of race if he possibly can. We’ll know by next week.

I can’t predict media cycles. Issues come and go and the press often drops them in mid story if distracted, never to return again. (See: Levy, Chandra.) Then again, this is a political campaign. Obama’s opponents certainly have a stake in seeing this one live on.

The Civil War might have ended 143 years ago but the Confederate battle flag refuses to die as a political issue.

The Republican presidential candidates on Thursday moved to appeal to different types of conservative voters before the South Carolina primary, with Mike Huckabee using colorful language to declare the Confederate flag a states’ rights issue and Senator John McCain embracing a supply-side tax cut proposal.

“You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag,” Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, told supporters in Myrtle Beach, according to The Associated Press. “In fact,” he said, “if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole; that’s what we’d do.”

At a news conference on Thursday night, he said, “It is not an issue the president of the United States needs to weigh in on.” Mr. Huckabee, who did not say whether he considered it offensive to fly the Confederate battle flag, made his remarks as he toured the state with David Beasley, a former South Carolina governor, who had angered some conservatives by removing the flag from the Capitol dome in Columbia and displaying it elsewhere on the Capitol grounds.

And a radio advertisement paid for by an independent group used the flag issue to attack Mr. McCain, of Arizona, and praise Mr. Huckabee. “John McCain assaults our values,” it said. “Mike Huckabee understands the value of heritage.”

[...]

The Confederate flag issue — while not as prominent as it was in 2000 — has continued to surface. Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is staking his campaign on a strong showing here, said at a debate in November that “for a great many Americans, it’s a symbol of racism” and added that he was “glad that people have made a decision not to display it as a prominent flag symbolic of something in a state capitol.”

Mr. McCain, who has cited his own equivocations on the issue in 2000 as one of his failures of political courage, was met at several stops by flag-waving protesters. Asked about the flag at an event on Wednesday in Spartanburg, Mr. McCain said, “My answer, sir, is that I could not be more proud that the overwhelming majority of the people of this state joined together taking that flag off the top of the….” And his answer was drowned out by the cheers of supporters.

Fox has videos of Huckabee’s statements here.

Here’s the anti-McCain ad:

Huckabee and the commercial are right on three points:

• The average guy with a Confederate battle flag on his pickup truck in indeed saying nothing more sinister than “I’m proud to be a Southerner.”
• For most of these guys, it’s about respect for heritage and values rather than race.
• This issue is none of the federal government’s business.

McCain’s right, though, that South Carolina did the right thing in deciding to stop flying the flag over the state capitol. The state has a large black population which, for good reason, sees it as a symbol of slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and other ugly parts of our past.

Not all that long ago, I agreed with Huckabee on the issue, finding the “heritage” argument dispositive. Hardy Jackson, my Southern History professor — and a proud Southerner — convinced me to change my mind with an elementary point: A core element of Southern culture (or, at least, its ideal) is civility. If flying the flag is deeply hurtful to a third of your population, it’s just downright rude to keep doing it. Let alone over your state capital.

So, Huckabee’s right that it’s not within the president’s power to tell South Carolina what to put on its flag. But McCain’s right that it’s a would-be president’s duty to speak out on issues that divide the country. There are all manner of things that are outside the scope of the president’s job where he can nonetheless lead by use of the bully pulpit.

John McCain is trying to simultaneously position himself as the GOP’s best hope to beat Hillary Clinton while avoiding a mud-slinging battle.

In a speech here that his campaign described as the kind of pointed but respectful approach he will take for the rest of the campaign, Mr. McCain sought to tap into the anti-Clinton sentiment seen to be driving many Republican primary voters, particularly in New Hampshire. At the same time, he tried to do it in a markedly different way from his two main rivals, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have both harshly attacked Mrs. Clinton in making their own cases for electability.

The Republicans have taken aim at Mrs. Clinton early in the campaign, months before even the first votes are cast, assuming that her lead position in national polls makes her the likely Democratic nominee. Each is trying to show that he would be best able to slug it out in what primary voters assume will be a very rough campaign.

Mr. McCain has struggled to balance his stated desire for a respectful contest with his campaign’s recognition that he has a lot of ground to cover to persuade Republicans that he would stand the best chance against Mrs. Clinton. The speech reflected that tension, citing an array of policy differences but using impersonal language.

“If I’m your nominee and Senator Clinton is the nominee of the other party, the country will face as clear a choice as any in recent memory,” he told an overflow crowd at Franklin Pierce University. “She will be a formidable candidate. And while our differences are many and profound, I intend this to be a respectful debate. She and I disagree over America’s direction, and it is a serious disagreement. But I don’t doubt her ability to lead this country where she thinks it should go.”

That’s exactly the right spirit, although I’m dubious of the ability of the candidates to keep the debate on that high plane. But, surely, we can do without another year of “Beat the Bitch” as the campaign theme.

The low tone of our political discourse (by no means unprecedented, to be sure) not only tends to turn the citizenry off from the process, ensuring that only the most ardent political junkies turn out to vote, but also delegitimates the outcome. When the opponent is thought of, not as a loyal American who simply has a different vision for the country but rather as an evil person who wants the country defeated by terrorists, to see old people and children starve, hates minorities, or what have you, then losing is simply unacceptable.

Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Glenn Greenwald argues that many of those now condemning MoveOn.org and/or demanding that Democrats condemn MoveOn.org for suggesting General David Petraeus would “betray us” are hypocrites, since many have used inflammatory rhetoric themselves.

He’s surely right in many particulars. Those on the Ann Coulter wing of the Right, who routinely throw around words like “traitors” and “treason” to describe mainstream Democrats for expressing honest disagreement, live in proverbial glass houses.

Many of us, though, have been rather consistent on this issue, decrying those on both sides of the aisle for going beyond the pale and creating a chilling effect on democratic debate. Still, I’ve argued since before the Iraq War started that there were plenty of honorable reasons to oppose it; I’ve defended John Kerry, John Murtha, John Edwards, and Joe Biden from unfair attacks; argued that Ward Churchill has a right to academic freedom (but not academic misconduct!); and I’ve repeatedly rebuffed the notion that Democrats are anti-victory, let alone anti-American.

The point of all this isn’t that I’ve been a bastion of civility in an otherwise harsh body politic. I’ve been at this since January 2003 and I’m sure that someone looking through my archives hard enough could find instances within the 15,958 posts I’ve written and find contrary examples. I’m occasionally snarky and infrequently angry but try to avoid painting with too broad a brush.

I’m hardly unique in this role. Most of the bloggers on my blogroll and certainly those in the recommended feeds in the top navigation bar have been mostly civil in their discussion of some incredibly divisive issues. That’s true of plenty of other non-blogging pundits, too (see this four-year-old George Will column, for example).

So, yes, condemn hypocrisy. But stand up and be counted when major spokesmen for your side go beyond the pale, too.

UPDATE: Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry and Jane Hamsher (and, presumably, others) argue that tactics like the “Betray Us” ad are not only brilliant but necessary to get one’s point noticed. But, surely, Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and others despised by the Left could make the same claim.

It’s true on many levels, of course. Bomb throwing tactics are often quite successful. But at what cost to civil society?

Britt Peterson’s profile of Unity08’s dream of a bipartisan presidential ticket demonstrates why third parties have such an uphill fight in America. Not only is the deck stacked against them institutionally — Ross Perot, easily the most successful modern example won “19 percent of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote” — but there simply isn’t much of a market for a mishmash party.

Anyone looking for larger ideas than a return to civility won’t get much from Unity ‘08, however. In our conversation, Bailey and Rafshoon wouldn’t take any policy stands, deflecting questions until after a candidate has been chosen in a “Virtual Convention” slated for next summer. “We’re not interested in spelling out or even having the delegates spell out a precise platform, where, by God, you must meet these tests or we don’t want you to run,” Bailey tells me. “That doesn’t make much sense.” Doing so, he says, would repel candidates, not attract them. Rafshoon, too, focuses on process and ethics, rather than issues. “Campaigns are run on the negatives,” he tells me. “That’s the promise they make to the people: ‘He’s no good, vote for me!’”

But the issues they do discuss don’t even seem that compatible. Bailey mentions three times the only Unity ‘08 issue that’s historically a Republican idée fixe: entitlements and the deficit. “Has there been an effort by a single candidate in either party to talk seriously about the deficit and entitlements?” he asks me. On the other side of the table, Rafshoon does seem sympathetic to the idea of a candidate focusing on the deficit (he mentions in passing that one of Ross Perot’s successes was to help set Clinton’s budget-balancing agenda). But balance this issue with Unity ’08’s other, admittedly spare, stated concerns, and the whole thing begins to look a little contradictory: cutting down on entitlements while also expanding health care, reducing income equality, and cleaning up the environment? How well can a platform built on flimsy, mismatched legs stand?

Not very well, I’m afraid.

There’s no doubt that there’s a burning desire for politicians to “work together for the good of the country” and for a “return to civility.” The problem, however, is that there is intense disagreement on what’s good for the country, which makes civility very difficult.