Hypocrisy threatens civil discourse

In the wake of the tragic shootings in Arizona, most of the speculative chatter seems to center on the supposedly exceptional “vitriol” of the current political climate and its alleged influence on the clearly deranged man who committed these horrible acts.

This talk of a need for a return to “civil discourse” in politics reeks of the same partisan gamesmanship as always. The same people who had avoided making any connection between the Fort Hood shooter and Islam evidently felt no need to give the tea party the same benefit of the doubt they extended to the Muslim community. Evidently allegation that Jared Lee Loughner was crazy and used a gun is all the evidence some need that he is associated with the right.

For all of the talk about the “toxic” political environment, some people seem all too happy to slander those they disagree with, labeling them bigots or hatemongers or bitter people, “clinging to guns or religion or antipathy toward others who aren’t like them.”

How hypocritical that they should make such generalizations about a diverse group of people and accuse them of being prejudiced. Those aren’t the actions of people interested in civil discourse. Those are the actions of people who seek to discredit the opinions of others, who believe themselves and their ideas intellectually superior.

Most people I have had civil discourse with do not appreciate being belittled, ignored or bullied. When treated with such condescension, I think it is understandable that people get a bit heated. Civil discourse would require mutual respect for other people’s concerns and a willingness to hear them out. A good start would be to take a moment out from attack mode.

Keith Schmelzer

Hoffman Estates