and the other a lying sexual
transgressor well you know I’m talking
about 1884 and Blaine Blaine the
Continental liar from the state of Maine
against mama where’s my paw one thing
that we learned from that year was that
once you impugn the integrity of the
other side issue distinctions go by the
wayside because you can’t trust someone
who’s a liar to tell you what they’re
going to do when they govern incivility
displaces issue substance let’s look at
an example from 1968 here the substance
is the principal distinction about the
war in Vietnam you must realize what
some of the political issues are here
than many yes or not even in the United
States happen to believe that the United
States policy is wrong in Vietnam I
assume that the point of the American
democracy I can think of is yourself
failing that listen you have Krypton
that’s it let’s stop calling name you
know goddamn things that they planted
now there’s a pattern there interruption
gives a way to attempts to silence gives
way to name-calling name-calling breeds
name-calling because we mirror and then
we escalate you’ve ultimately got a
threat to violence but here’s a question
these are folks you probably don’t know
although they are the leading
intellectuals or leading intellectuals
of their day and so you probably aren’t
taking sides in this and we’re likely to
say well one of them is really the
guilty party but what about candidates
now as we’re about to vote when the
candidate who is engaging in an
appropriate discourse is on our side I’d
like you to ask that question as I show
Ellis trations from this year’s election
and contrast two points in the recent
past to ask the question is it worth now
the answer is going to be yes first
let’s look at indications of rudeness
and I’m going to use as my example a
vice presidential debate
very important issue Bernie maybe we
could extend on education for a moment
you’re asking me to invoke the
moderators discretion I am has the
discussion about the moderators
discussion yes their discretion
it is so granted thank you sir it makes
us more weak it projects weakness and
when we look weak our adversaries are
much more willing to test us they’re
more brazen in their attacks and our
allies are less willing with all due
respect that’s a bunch of malarkey and
why that’s it guys not a single thing
you said is accurate this is a bunch of
stuff look here’s the deal what does
that mean a bunch of stuff well it means
it’s simply an act Irish but last thing
free and paid taxes and lost a billion
dollars a year Ukraine or you you bear
heavy-handed approach you both have said
Vladimir well in just a moment we’re
yeah that’s right so now we’re even
yeah what what did you get any issue
distinctions out of that talking over
each other
interrupting well the audience gave us a
verdict this debate is notable for the
fact that audience has fled it in record
numbers that is they tuned in and then
they went away let’s look at another
indicator guilt by association there’s
the definition and I’m going to look at
two instances in both cases the attacked
candidate had been endorsed by an
influential member of the Ku Klux Klan
in both cases the campaign that’s being
attacked had rejected the endorsement
but in the first case 1964 Lyndon
Johnson against Barry Goldwater the ad
very expensive ad was produced but never
aired they feared a backlash they feared
the public would recognize guilt by
association but look at the contrast in
2016 the piece I’m going to show there
is posted online
we represent the majority of the people
in Alabama who hate nigger ISM
Judaism and all the isms of the whole
world
so said Robert creel of the Alabama Ku
Klux Klan he also said I like Barry
Goldwater he needs our help
Oh President Johnson on November 3rd the
reason a lot of Klan members like Donald
Trump is because a lot of what he
believes we believe in third category
lying it’s really difficult to prove
that someone is lying because lying is
deliberate intentional deception and
once you call someone a liar as I noted
earlier there’s no point in believing
their issue distinctions because you
don’t know what a liar is actually going
to do so let’s look at lie and lying in
2004 a presidential debate the uses of
the term and also in 2016 I never carry
two minutes you’ve just you’ve
repeatedly accused President Bush not
here tonight but elsewhere before of not
telling the truth about Iraq essentially
a line to the American people about Iraq
give us some examples of what you
consider to be is not telling the truth
well I’ve never ever used the harshest
word as you did just then and I try not
to I’ve been now he misled the American
people in his speech he misled the
American people when he said we’d go to
war as a last resort she got caught in a
total lie and she lied okay Honest Abe
Honest Abe never lied that’s the good
thing that’s the big difference between
Abraham Lincoln and you and by the way
at the last debate she lied they
actually said that she lied okay and she
lied but she’s lied about a lot of
things difference in degree difference
in kind so I asked the question earlier
are you able to see instances in which
the candidate you favor is doing things
that are inappropriate well it’s much
more difficult to actually do that in
today’s media environment because as we
increasingly enclave into partisan media
media silos what we see is those on the
right point out all the instances of
instability on the left and those on the
left do the exact reverse let me show
you an example
as we reported last night congressman
Alan Grayson a Democrat from Orlando
Florida has said a number of
irresponsible things the latest outrage
calling this female obvious – whore let
me finish tonight with this even Hitler
thought it more important to get to
Paris well that was a Texas congressman
nasty knock of course on President Obama
for his failure to attend the big rally
in France this past weekend wouldn’t it
be good for the country of politicians
dropped the whole Hitler thing and
return to saying what we Republicans and
those Democrats just have an honest
disagreement on some big stuff yes it
would but it would also be better if we
recognize when our own side did the same
thing and policed it well do they we go
through the study at the Annenberg
Public Policy Center and we looked for
instances that were very close on the
left and their right we found him we
found Hitler signs being used to
identify Scott Walker in Wisconsin
Republican Hitler signs tied to Barack
Obama attacking the Affordable Care Act
we find instances in which those on the
Left said about women they disagreed
with on the right she’s a talk or a
or she’s a whore and we found
instances in the legislature in which
people on both sides talked about
legislation sponsored by those of
opposing view and said that legislation
means people are going to die so we had
paired instances and we asked how are
they covered consistent with the
prediction those on the right Fox News
condemned those on the left those on the
Left MSNBC condemned those on the right
but both side downplayed or ignored
those on the same side now what does
that do it increases the likelihood that
you think that there’s more incivility
than there actually is because those
instances are played and replayed and
replayed but it also suggests that we
know where the blame lies but it doesn’t
lie with us and if that other side is
transgressing routinely well shouldn’t
it be okay to engage in the same thing
after all
remember the playground axiom hey they
started it in this kind of environment
what can we do well the first is we can
recognize when our own side transgresses
and we can call them out for it
candidates should police their own side
I can’t trust Obama III have read
on him and he’s not he’s not he’s a he’s
an Arab he is not no no no ma’am no
ma’am he’s a he’s a he’s a decent family
man citizen that I just happened to have
disagreements with on fundamental issues
you heard about this phenomenon Bernie
bros people who support you and
sometimes attack in very crude and
sexist ways I have heard about it we
don’t want that crap Thank You senators
McCain and Sanders we also can
institutionally police our own side and
the first instance here is really
important
the Republicans are control of the house
the Republican congressman who’s
charging incumbent President Bill
Clinton a Democrat of treason is taken
down that is formally censured by a
house controlled by the Republicans
Clinton gave aid and comfort to the
enemy a presidents of the house the
words of the speaker we’re out of order
and without objection the work that
works will be stricken from the record
the reforms I’m proposing would not
apply to those who are here illegally
well I last night I heard from the
leadership that they wanted me to
contact the White House and state that
my statements were inappropriate I did
we can also increase the likelihood that
we reserved the language that questions
integrity or impugns patriotism for the
real thing and this cartoon illustrates
what the real thing might look like we
also can protect deliberative space by
following Jefferson’s rules
Jefferson’s rules for the House of
Representatives basically say attack the
position attack the policy but don’t
impede the integrity don’t impune the
person don’t attack the person on the
other side it’s a pretty good rule and
Wikipedia adopts it but I’d like to make
one change in the Wikipedia listing
because one word up there is used to
disparage those with mental retardation
and I think in our discourse we ought to
say what is comfortable and take
accountability for our own words and I
want that word changed so I’m going to
say I like the statement as long as you
say someone may very well be a fool but
telling them so is neither going to
increase their intelligence nor improve
their ability to commute communicate
with them and finally we need to monitor
our own communication and hold ourselves
accountable here’s the vice-president
doing that your appraisal of the passage
of the Affordable Care Act will go down
in history you said it was a big
something deal I believe by the way a
reporter read my lips I whispered in the
president’s ear and thank God my mother
wasn’t around
notice the vice president isn’t
repeating the offensive language and
he’s indicating he’s not proud of it
despite all these discourse protecting
moves this is a worse year than in the
recent past and by some measures and I
haven’t pointed to those worse than any
time in the history of the Republic but
before we become depressed and filed for
papers to go to Canada we might put this
in some historical context let’s look at
mama
where is my paw and carry ourselves all
the way to the present day here’s what’s
historically true most of our leaders
most of the time have engaged the issue
sometimes viciously sometimes in a
highly partisan and
fashion but engage the issues they
haven’t attacked the integrity or
impugned the patriotism of those with
whom they disagree we found that in our
study in 2012 I showed you the bad
instances and they are Hitler analogies
what you’ll die if this legislation is
passed but those are rare they are an
aberration and we need to keep that in
mind but there have been periods in our
history in which boy did we go off the
rails we went off the rails during the
McCarthy era some of you remember
senator McCarthy and those who don’t
will remember studying him this is a
u.s. senator who used the powers of his
office to take a congressional committee
against Americans whose patriotism and
integrity and loyalty to country was
questioned without anything that were
reasonably called evidence we finally
got out of that period our system was
resilient and we stepped back and we
said we’re gonna call that thing
something we’re gonna call that
McCarthyism and we’re going to teach
that label in our schools so that we’re
going to increase the likelihood that we
spot it if we ever see it again and we
decrease the likelihood that we will
ever go to that dark place that moment
is an important moment in our history
and it tells us about something that I
think we should draw as a lesson because
after this dismal 2016 campaign I think
we need to step back and those of us who
care about the discourse of the country
and the ways in which it can protect our
democratic institutions need to ask two
important questions first what could we
have done differently in 2016 to raise
the level of discourse and minimize some
of these problematic norm breaking
instances and secondly a difficult but
important question how can we best
identify assess and discuss personal
characteristics and habits of mind that
affect how a candidate would govern if
we find good answers to those questions
we will increase the likelihood that
when successive generations look back on
2016 and it’s extreme discourse and it’s
norm breaking excesses they will say the
2016 was an aberration it wasn’t the new normal thank you