Iâm all for some decorum & saving strong language for situations that merit it.
But with Trump in officeâŚif not now, then when?
More than 20 years after Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, it should be eminently clear that one duopoly party of politicians has zero interest in reaching true consensus and solutions, and has rejected a true sense of credibility and collegiality (as understood by what Karl Rove called âthe reality based communityâ) while retaining the superficial trappings of it in public (which theyâve weaponised against anyone who calls them on their BS).
In response to all that, and the nadir itâs reached with the current âpresidentâ, I donât blame people (especially those like Tlaib whoâve had their voices silenced for so long) for using profanity. That Iâm not personally prone to cursing and find it unfortunate that weâve come to this pass, I still have enough awareness of my own privilege that Iâm not going to clutch my pearls and head to the fainting couch over it (you might want to have both on hand if you watch that Snoop Dog video).
As an affluent white male, people will listen to me and take me seriously if (sometimes especially if) I speak quietly and politely in a modest tone. Others donât enjoy that âsuperpowerâ, and if they have to sometimes yell and use naughty words in public Iâm not going to police their tone â I save that for other affluent white males.
[ETA: before you say it, no, this isnât a âtwo wrongs make a rightâ argument; itâs acknowledging that the the system is rigged by privileged incumbents to make one side always seem to be behaving in a coarse manner, even as the side that makes the rules wallows in coarse behaviour. At the risk of giving you the vapours, f*ck that noise.]
Snoop is blunt!!
Also great, appropriate usage of âmotherfuckerâ.
Strong image, right? Yes, totally. The difference is itâs not my first day in the US House of Representatives. Much lower risk of complicating cross-party discussion.
Agree. See relevant exchange above re risk recalibration. Sorry, Iâm trying to get to everyone. Letters! I get letters!
I would have far more respect for them if they did.
Civility only benefits trolls and d-bags
Great question. Thank you.
Iâve tried to sketch this quite a bit above. I think the main issue (in my opinion and experience) is that when a negotiation or discussion turns into a swearing match, the chance to reach an agreement is reduced. This person has made a strong first impression as someone who might call you a motherfucker. It seems likely (but, of course, itâs not guaranteed) that this will be baggage in future negotiations, making them less collegial, more difficult.
Also, above, I had a bit of an exchange where we got into the cost/benefit, and I agreed the risk could make more sense in some cases, maybe this case. For example, it seems to have inspired the former PM of Canada to call Trump a motherfucker, which is surely a new kind of political accomplishment. I hope it continues to pay off.
Iâm very concerned about the tone of politics in recent years. Weâve seen a decline in civility and bipartisanship, and a rapid increase in hostility between those who have differing opinions. I think this has led to the alienation of the public in governance, which jeopardizes democratic participation. I also have grave concern over the 24 hour media news cycle and how thatâs helped created an expectation of immediacy in public policy â this encourages public officials to make short term decisions that arenât always good for the long term health of our country. ~ Kyrsten Sinema, 2010
We all have our heroes.
If people wanted an accommodationist at this point in history- theyâd have brought back Joe Lieberman.
We need to reach an agreement with Trump/The Republican Party? WTF? They have made exceedingly clear for 20+ years now they are not fucking interested in an agreement just their way or the highway. FUCK THEM. WITH A MOTHERFUCKING CACTUS.
They made it clear long ago they donât want to and are not interested in playing nice. Play nice and by the rules with that opponent and you will lose.
This is correct. What people have finally come to understand is that the way to get any agreement from those types is to win.
Iâve been in enough negotiations to know that when one side (esp. the more powerful one) is effectively saying âgo f-ck yourself and your demandsâ in the politest, most reasonable and gentlemanly way, sometimes the only way for the other side to make itself clear is to say, quite explicitly, âf-ck you, we know what youâre really saying, and weâre not coming back to the table until you get serious.â
In my first career, I was required to be a member of a journalistâs union. Now my shop stewards were about the nicest, politest, and best-educated (and, yes, whitest) group of guys you could ever meet. At one point, the union held a meeting to discuss various serious demands to management that had come to a head. We met at a union hall. The group discussion about how they should conduct themselves at the bargaining table was civil, reasonable, calm, profanity-free. Co-incidently, in the room next door, separated by a partition, a Teamsters local was discussing something similar in a manner that contrasted with every adjective describing our discussion. There could have been a brick wall between us and we would have heard every word.
A couple of weeks later, guess which union reps came away with nothing and which ones came away with serious concessions (hint: we reported on the latter story without having to issue a disclaimer). It was a life lesson for young me.
Well, not necessarily the entire Republican party. But we donât always get the entire Democratic party either. To get bills through, etc., very often some Republicans have to sign on, so agreement needs to be reached with them at least. Then thereâs the Senate. And getting past a presidential veto.
No. Forced, one-sided civility does that, yes. But civility as a whole is still a good thing.
Yep, Iâve seen stuff like that happen too. Itâs a big world, a lot of things happen, depending on the situation, the players, their positions, the facts, on and on. At the right time, in the right place, many things can work.
I had a job for a while which involved obtaining approvals from government agencies on a particular kind of fairly complex matter. Code compliance, public input, proper documentation, all were factors. Sometimes progress would stall and tempers fray. My colleagues and I worked hard to find ways to keep things calm and on track. It was a winning approach in that setting and itâs worked well for me in a lot of other places too.
Privileged people, even when they disagree, can usually do that, especially if they already have roughly equivalent amounts of social capital and are genuinely interested in reaching an agreement. What youâre not acknowledging here is that the setting in which Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez are operating is quite a different one, despite a superficial sheen of institutional respectability (a very superficial one).
When the GOP acts like the management of my news outlet or like that of a local trucking company did, Iâd rather have the equivalent of the Teamsters negotiating for my interests rather than the Gentlemanly Society of News Scribes.
If only Act Up had been more civil - Regan would have had a sense of urgency. Perhaps a gift basket?
Moneyed interests seeking a minor accommodation from those the business likely made donations to is the model of government we all want.
