Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 7, 1995 TAG: 9505100004
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: D-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Many readers focused on the headliners in this debate - President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Oklahoma City. But the debate over the tone of political life in America was one that Clinton and others were trying to raise well before the bombing.
So let's start with the essential question: Are loud and angry voices good or bad for society? Here's what folks in Western Virginia had to say...
LOUD AND ANGRY IS BAD . . .
Speech is a very powerful thing. Many people abuse this power with irresponsible, uncivilized verbal attacks on individuals and groups ...
There is nothing politically that can or should be done about this irresponsible speech. Instead, thoughtful people must exercise their freedom of speech to denounce this growing trend and make it socially unacceptable. This is the only way we will make a difference.
- Jeff Stewart, Blacksburg
There is no foundation for a need for vilification of opponents as somehow base individuals of a lesser breed. It is possible to be quite adroit in politicking with comity. Patrician Virginia has long been noted for political comity. In the last year comity has degenerated into spite. Statesman-politicians, and we have them, are disheartened by this new torrid climate in the legislatures and executive offices and some are leaving because of it, to our great loss.
Cool it, hot rhetoricians. The record in Richmond shows little of substance gets done through fracas.
- Leonard J. Uttal, Blacksburg
I have been alarmed for the last thirty years that the sensibilities of the silent majority have been offended by a vocal few who seem to have no sensibilities. The very heart and soul of this country was built on dissent, so that is not the problem ...
What has changed is that there is a divergence from common courtesy, good manners, common sense, and a sense of decency that many of our forebearers espoused. Proper use of the English language and a genuine concern for the views of all can make any point clear, convincing and poignant. Many have given themselves over to electronic "quick hit" communication that avoids the art of conversation, reading and writing, which require some thought. In other words "what comes up, comes out."
And who has capitalized on these "loud and angry voices"? - the media! Sensational reporting of "loud and angry voices" has pushed them into the conscious awareness of Americans. Negative headlines and news blurbs on electronic media are designed to get our attention and we have succumbed to this invasion until we have lost sight of much that is wonderful in the world.
We as a people must speak out! We must tell politicians that we won't listen to their cutthroat offensive campaigns. We must tell the media that we want balanced news reporting. But more importantly, we must retrain our minds to focus on the upbeat and positive around us. For every act of violence and horror, there is an act of love and charity that rarely gets reported. For every loud and angry voice, there is a soft and peaceful one. We must learn to listen for the latter and the politicians and media could help us to get started.
- L. Gerald Carter, Vinton
The ability to disagree without being disagreeable is becoming a lost art in this country. Name calling and personal attacks are now called "debate." On the whole, I find it disgusting. I think that all people need to listen to the words they are saying and think long and hard. "Would I want my mother to hear me saying this?" "Would I be proud to hear this coming out of the mouths of my children?"
... Anyone who has ever spoken words of hate or listened to that type of language without speaking up and saying "enough" should feel a twinge of guilt. And I am not just singling out talk radio hosts or the far-right politicians. Everyone, including the President, who engages in name-calling and personal attacks is equally guilty.
What to do? Just say enough is enough. Don't listen to it. Write letters to anyone you catch talking this way and tell them to stop it. Teach your children to disagree without being disagreeable. And, listen to yourself before you speak.
- Sherry M. Siska, Salem
The tone of public discourse in America has become mean-spirited and reckless. Statements made by political figures and public speakers have changed from being opinionated to being harsh and intolerant. We will not be able to build a great country if people are pushed around and intimidated. Such statements as 'let's enjoy knocking their soft teeth down their whiny throats,' as stated by Governor George Allen should not be uttered ... Our society would benefit from fewer demagogues and more thoughtful and tolerant speakers.
- Porter Zedalis, Blacksburg
LOUD AND ANGRY IS BAD (and it's mostly the conservatives who are to blame) . . .
I agree with President Clinton on this one. Words do have consequences and right-wing commentators and politicians have created with their hyperbole and invective a climate that fosters violence and insurrection ... The most important thing that should be done now is to censure (not censor) those who are working to create the problem.
This is not to say that right-wing jackanapes like OIIie North and Gordon Liddy are guilty of the same crime as the ones who bombed the federal buiIding in Oklahoma City. However, they share the responsibiIity for polarizing the country and encouraging such persons to believe in their twisted cause. It is not morally acceptable to respond, as some on the right have said, that the "crime beIongs to the criminaI." This is a self-serving rationalization and they do not truly believe it (read their own commentaries on school prayer and abortion; these people do beIieve that words have consequences) . . .
The tone of public discourse has become unmistakably mean-spirited. More than that, the tone of right-wing "discourse" has become markedly violent and insurrectionist. Some examples: OIIie North's campaign literature characterizing his opponents as "enemies." George Allen's exhortation to "knock their soft teeth down their whiny throats." Senator (?!) Jesse Helms' threat against the physical safety of the President if he were to visit North Carolina ... Gordon Liddy's advice on how to shoot BATF agents. The ilI-concealed racism celebrated by Rush Limbaugh, who deIights in running clips of black government officiaIs and making fun of their speech patterns (check out the show he advertised as the "Joycelyn Elders Film Fest").
Certainly our society has to tolerate "Ioud and angry voices." At the same time, we have to recognize the consequences of rhetoric that encourages and fosters hatred, paranoia, racism and violence. The best thing that society can do is encourage its press, including its newspapers, to expose the "Ioud and angry voices" to the examination and criticism of public opinion. Unless the consequences of the rhetoric are recognized and public disapprovaI is brought to bear, these irresponsible persons and the paramilitary groups they encourage will present a continuing threat to our society. If we don't act to solve this problem with moral suasion and reasoned discussion, then we risk losing civil liberties for real.
- James R. Henderson IV, Tazewell
I think public discourse is too loud and angry. Especially Rush Limbaugh and also Gordon Liddy, though I don't get his radio show in Roanoke, and I think that Newt Gingrich is too loud and angry especially against the president and his wife. Even if they aren't politically for the president, they could at least be respectful.
- Peggy Hamlin, Roanoke
It is probably false to say that conservative political rhetoric served either as a sufficient or as a necessary condition for the Oklahoma bombing. Moreover, the causal links between the rhetoric and the bombing are probably too diffuse and too oblique to warrant legal culpability. Nevertheless, by helping to create and legitimate a climate of anger, intolerance, and zealotry, conservative political discourse was indeed a contributing cause to the death of well over 100 innocent people in that event.
Make no mistake. My claim here is not that conservative ideas cause violence. Rather, the problem rests in the way those ideas have been advanced. Nor do I think the left has nothing to learn from the bombing. Left-wing rhetoric has at times been just as incendiary as that produced by the right, and we on the left should take heed of the strange fruit that such language can yield. It is the right, however, which currently dominates the political scene in this country, and the preponderance of hate speech today certainly emanates from the right.
With nets of polarizing political invective, conservatives have in recent years been trawling with increasing intensity in the waters of hatred. Through the bombing in Oklahoma, as well as in attacks on environmentalists out west, we can now see that conservatives have not only harvested a majority in congress with these nets. They have also hauled up some very ugly creatures, and it is time they own up to that fact.
- Peter Fosl, Roanoke
NO, LOUD AND ANGRY IS GOOD . . .
I think the tone and content of public discourse these days is free spirited and does not preach hatred but disagreement. To my knowledge, we have this right of free speech in the USA. Our freedom is what made our country great and the place people dream of living in.
There is no speech that I consider "out of bounds". There are people that use speech that I choose not to use, but I respect their freedom to use it. I believe that loud and angry voices are a good thing. Our country will turn into a dictatorial society if we choose not to disagree . . .
- Johnson H. Mills, Hardy
The worst thing we, as citizens, could do is limit or censor speech or writing on any subject. By venting their anger and frustration, citizens can gain an insight and understanding of the situation.
- Don Terp, Roanoke
It's okay to be angry. It's what you do with anger that counts. Even the Bible says be angry, but sin not ... It's not okay to hate. But it's okay to get angry .
- Georgia Campbell, Bedford
BESIDES, WE HAVE GOOD REASONS TO BE LOUD AND ANGRY . . .
Start electing moral and Godly people to represent us and the loud and angry voices will soon disappear.
- Garry Ashburn, Roanoke
People are responding to these talk shows, because they do not have voices in the government. We have been withheld from having voices in our government. Our government has gotten so big and powerful that now we realize that it should be returned to the states. And there are a lot of people who are angry ... And there are some loud and angry voices in America today because we are not Christian today as we were at one time.
- Georgia Campbell, Bedford
Right now the second amendment was attacked successfully. The fourth amendment is being attacked (the right to search and seizure). We're looking at freedom of speech being questioned right now. You want to know why people are angry, that's why. ... Here are serious attacks going on against the Constitution right now. Maybe President Clinton doesn't like it that we happen to notice.
- Eva Maco, Staffordsville
I think the government is too busy trying to equal everybody with each other and that is where our temperaments get out of hand. If I work harder, I feel like I deserve a little more than everybody else. And I think that is true of most people today.
- R.L. Hall, Roanoke
I think the people are overly taxed by both federal and state governments. Add up the state and federal income taxes plus the sales taxes and personal property taxes and real property taxes and tell us what we have left. In order to have laws to control the very few nuts, the law-abiding citizens are affected grossly. I am 63 years old and it's getting worse by the day.
- John Campbell, Roanoke
The tone of public discourse is being escalated due to feelings of frustration instilled in us. The general public feels it has no say in how the government directs their lives and spends their dollars. We are told that our vote means a difference and nothing seems to change and generally seems to get worse. Crime is on the rise. Politicians are getting rich. And every day we hear one of them is being investigated or prosecuted for wrongdoings. The media is constantly broadcasting doom and gloom: kids killing kids, drugs are ever-prevelant, spending is out of control and our country's debt just for a few examples of what fuels this frustration.
We can't pray in our schools any more because of the civil rights of others, but what of our rights, the rights of Christians? The IRS, the state, the local governments, continue to tax us and oppress us. The little man, the working stiff, the core of our population, is being downtrodden and kept low.
The same feeling of discourse against our government and its departments is the same feeling that the majority are starting to feel about the companies we work for. Our benefits are being reduced, our retirements are being threatened, not to mention our livelihoods, our jobs. The extremists are not much different than the average Joe Blow. They believe in God and civil rights and civil liberties and the American dream of owning a small piece of land and the white picket fence and the pursuit of freedom and of higher education. Most of them have fought for our country and some of them have lost fathers and sons in the defense of what this country stands for.
The difference between us and them is they have let their frustrations get the better of them. Some of them have attempted to take matters in their own hands. They have started simply by starting home education for their children so they would have control over what their children are taught about sex education and to keep them protected from drugs and violence. They formed churches of their own and civic organizations where they could exercise the right of religion and speech. They exercise the right to carry arms and are the NRA's strongest supporters. The so-called extremists are not so different from us. They just get tired of nothing being done and wanting to do something for themselves . . .
The extremists love their country and its heritage and want best for its future. They want good and secure jobs and freedom for all men. They believe in the Bill of Rights. They just feel their rights are being infringed upon and that they have nothing to say about it. No one cares. How much longer before we are called extremists? Those loud and angry voices in America today: Who are those loud and angry voices today? Circumstances have fueled a climate of hatred that poisons the public discourse today. We just want to talk about it. We just want to vent our frustrations. Don't take that freedom away from us, too. Don't take that, too. If they do, how much longer before we are called extremists?
- Patrick Snare, Christiansburg
ANYWAY, THE WHOLE DEBATE IS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT BY LIBERALS TO STIFLE CONSERVATIVES . . .
Is the President encouraging 'loud and angry voices' when he says 'we must stand up and speak out against reckless speech'? Does this mean to speak out only against conservatives? I've heard many liberals who are extremely loud and extremely angry as well as, in our president's words, relentlessly clamoring hatred and division. This reckless speech comes from groups such as the women's movement and homosexual groups.
Look folks, this is America and we have a right to express our opinions. I know that hatred is out there, but for the most part, it is passionate beliefs and not hatred. Rush Limbaugh, as always, says it best: There is a huge difference between dissent and hate. I have never heard hate expressed in the words of Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich. I abhor the beliefs of some of the liberals, but I do not hate the people."
- Myrtle Gray, Chamblissburg
This is the second most serious attack on freedom of speech in my lifetime, in my opinion. The first was Joe McCarthy. This attack seems to be an extreme case of politically correct speech. Clinton is obviously trying to stifle legitimate, conservative views.
- Arvid Myklebust, New Castle
If anyone disagrees with the left, they are prone to being branded. And, in fact, I think the left has been prone to labeling and hate speech, if you will, ever since a well-defined and the current neo-left arose back in the 60s and 70s. They are constantly calling people Nazis, fascist pigs, sexist, racist and other inflammatory terms. And, even now, the current basic, simple conservatives are labeled right-wing extremists, religious right and this and that. That is one of the standard techniques of the left. So, I don't think the relatively mild rhetoric of our talk-show hosts is in any way shape, or form critical.
- Alan Denekas, Roanoke
I think public discourse is fine. But they talk about intolerance and it's usually the left that is intolerant. If you don't see things their way you are wrong, a psycho, you're a right-wing fundamentalist.
- Wes Link, Salem
A President of the United States who feels threatened by free speech is weak and insecure. Such a man is not a suitable leader for a great democracy that was founded on the freedom to speak.
- Robert Sadler, Roanoke
by CNB