So writes the Charleston Daily Mail’s Don Surber about the sudden calls on the left for “civil discourse.”
Perhaps, I’ll take these making such cries seriously if they making them can point to statements they made between December 12, 2000 and January 20, 2009 calling for civil discourse and chiding Bush-haters for their calumny against the then-Republican chief executive (or, for the first 40 days of that time-frame chief executive-elect). Did Paul Krugman denounce left-wingers for coarsening the level of debate?
Did any of those on the left of the political spectrum do so? I’m sure there were a few, maybe even among the editors of the New York Times. We should take seriously only those who provide evidence that they criticized the calumny and lambasted leftists who cried, “Bush lied.”
“The left,” Surber writes, summing it up, “wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.”
Read the whole thing. It’ll help you understand why some conservatives do not want civil discourse. Seems they just want to give certain voices on the left a taste of their own medicine.
I don’t share their view, but do sympathize with their sentiment. Why should they be civil to those who refused to show the same courtesy to conservatives and elected Republicans.
RELATED: Pam Meister, ‘Civil’ Discourse: A One-Way Street?
UPDATE: On the debates “that journalists only have with themselves“:
Obviously, even The New York Times eventually got the story right, and the facts eventually won out (though apologies have yet to materialize). But it is also abundantly clear that many of the people and institutions piously speechifying about the desperate need to moderate the political discourse had no problem falsely indicting others in a horrendous murder, not because they knew the charge was true but solely because they desperately wanted it to be.