Jonah Goldberg



Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE



So maybe the 1990s was the last great outpouring of lovingkindness? Hmmm, no. At least I don't think Clarence Thomas would say so. Nor do I think anyone who watched the Clinton show would claim it was a hallmark of sober debate on either side. Clinton's minions attacked victims of his sexual aggression or revelations about his accomplices in his adultery as "bimbo eruptions." Was civility the norm when Rep. Charlie Rangel said of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things"?

Was it the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was routinely dubbed a nuclear-trigger-happy "amiable dunce"? I was young then, so I'll check with Robert Bork and see what he thinks.

Perhaps it was in the 1960s and 1970s? Sure, there was admirable civil disobedience in the beginning, but there was a lot more uncivil disobedience, what with all the domestic terror attacks and the protesters asking LBJ how many kids he killed today.

The 1950s? Who knew the McCarthy era was such a high-water mark of domestic tranquility? What about the 1930s? America saw its worst labor violence, and FDR had to put up with demagogues like Huey Long and Father Coughlin (who attacked him from the left, by the way). How about the 1910s, when Woodrow Wilson threw political opponents in jail? Or in 1919, when he dubbed "hyphenated Americans" (i.e. "German-Americans) traitors? "I cannot say too often -- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic. ... If I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic."

OK, enough of all that.

And yes, let me offer a sincere denunciation of rudeness for rudeness' sake. Let me also concede that there is no shortage of bilious, nasty rhetoric on the right.


And there's something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama's opponents are trying to "delegitimize" the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."


Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president's agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network's lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it's worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. "Objective" journalism is a 20th century confabulation, as alien to the Founders' vision as transporter beams and time travel.


Jonah Goldberg
