A few years ago, the historical context was different: Opposition to an unpopular war seemed to justify any rhetorical excess. At antiwar rallies, George W. Bush was routinely compared to Adolf Hitler. A film was made contemplating Bush’s assassination. In his article “The Case for Bush Hatred,” the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait stated, “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”…
The opposite — questioning the legitimacy of a democratic outcome; abusing, demeaning and attempting to silence one’s opponents — is a sign of democratic decline. From the late Roman republic to Weimar Germany, these attitudes have been the prelude to thuggery. Thugs can come with clubs, with bullhorns, with Internet access.
Admittedly, the call for civility can be a political ploy. It is not a coincidence that the party in power is invariably the defender of decorum, hoping to shield itself from criticism. And some people attempt to use the threat of radicalism as a weapon. The syllogism goes: Some who oppose health-care reform seem prone to extremism. Therefore anyone who opposes health-care reform is promoting extremism. It is enough to make a professor of logic weep. It is also the same reasoning that would accuse all who hold antiwar views of promoting anti-Americanism.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member