The shouting curse

Something is happening to civil discourse in American politics, which has long been considered rowdy compared to its European cousins. The years-long U.S. presidential campaign process must look like a circus to observers in countries where a weeks-long parliamentary process chooses the head of government.

Not that I think parliaments are better than our Congress. But they are different.

What I see -- and hear -- these days is shouting instead of persuasive debate. It's the kind of behavior most of our mothers would have ended quickly if we had tried such stunts when we were kids.

Occasionally, I watch the C-SPAN broadcasts of Prime Minister's Questions from the British Parliament. These weekly exchanges, when the House of Commons is in session, give members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to ask questions, mostly loaded, and score points with their respective parties. And the questions give the prime minister an opportunity to lay out policy and point to the successes of the current government's programs.

It's all quite civilized.

Occasionally, a questioner or the prime minister is greeted with hoots and hollers, but the speaker quickly restores order and reminds the MPs that they are decent adults and should behave accordingly. And they do.

These outbursts during parliamentary exchanges are part of the debate tradition in that setting. What's happening in the U.S. takes hoots and hollers to a new and, in my opinion, uncivilized level.

Last week Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, had to walk away from a town hall meeting because the audience shouted her down. She was trying to explain what she considers to be the key points and merits of health-care reform. Her audience would have none of it.

A few years ago, a state legislator from this area took exception to a governor's State of the State address and interjected his disagreement from the floor of the House where the legislature was meeting in joint session.

More recently, another local state legislator made noises to drown out comments being made by others during floor debate.

Is this the best we can do?

Whatever happened to gathering facts, examples, experiences, studies, polls and endorsements and then presenting a logical argument for your position?

It appears too many of us aren't all that interested in facts, examples, experiences et cetera. Instead, we stake out a position, often ill-informed, and lend our voices to the raucous bellowing of whatever side we've chosen to be on. Whoever shouts the loudest wins. Right?

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Shouting matches produce no winners. Just bullies.

How sad.

Is this what we've learned from talk radio? That in any given argument there is only one side, and that's all you need to know?

I am in favor of opposing viewpoints. It is the crucible of debate that refines the best course of action. By listening to positions taken by all sides, the hearer can draw his or her own conclusions.

If the shouters are in control, no one hears anything.

There is another void created by shouters. We know they oppose whatever they're shouting at. But what are they for? Their shouting draws attention, but it contributes nothing to the process of developing good ideas or the arguments in support of those good ideas.

If the shouters who prevented Kathleen Sebelius from talking about health-care reform have ideas of their own -- and they could well have good ideas worth exploring -- we don't know what they are. We only know they oppose the Obama administration's plan (which is somewhat ethereal in its own right), and they don't want anyone to hear what a Cabinet member has to say about it.

So what are we going to do about health care, economic policy, immigration, family values, abortion, education and taxation?

We can contribute to a healthy debate.

Or we can shout down those with whom we disagree.

I choose a civil democracy.

I am prepared, however, for the shouts of those who see things differently.

jsullivan@semissourian.com<I>