The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Let me preface this post by apologizing to my loyal readers (that is, if such people exist outside of my family) for not publishing for a few weeks. I’ve been knee deep in writing a new book with a looming deadline, plus I’m a bit burned out on blogging weekly. You wouldn’t believe the pressure in having to write an insightful, clever, and pithy post every week! And, despite all of the less-than-cheerful news lately, I just haven’t been inspired. But I feel my blogging mojo returning and especially for this post, I’m feeling darned inspired.

In fact, I’m not just inspired, I’m downright riled up. As those few loyal followers know, I’m the author of three parenting books, am an outspoken advocate of public education reform, plus I have two kids of my own. So when I see children getting the short end of the stick, it gets my knickers in an uproar. And not only are children getting the short end of the stick, they’re getting their backsides beaten with that stick even though they haven’t done anything wrong.

I swear, America seems to really hate its children these days. How else to explain all of the efforts in both federal and state government to take away so much that is essential for children’s health and welfare. And whatever happened to the motto, “Children are Our Future?” A lot of people out there aren’t acting like that’s the case any more.

Let’s get specific. A substantial part of the recent legislation to reduce the federal deficit (which, by the way, was passed by both the GOP and the Dems!) directly harms children. There are the draconian cuts to school budgets, nutrition programs, early child education, and health care (though children will be helped if Obamacare survives), all essential for the futures of so many children. Talk about a country shooting its future in the foot!

And then there are the indirect effects that are no less hurtful. When parents lose their jobs and their homes, who do you think suffer the most? The children, of course. Is there anything more fundamental to healthy development than having loving, attentive parents and the security and comfort of a home to grow up in? Yet, when parents lose their jobs, they are stressed, depressed, and preoccupied, generally qualities not associated with good parenting. And when they lose their homes, children experience nothing less than a major earthquake  in their lives; what had been so solid under their feet has been yanked out from under them. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a decade or so, there is an epidemic of PTSD among the young people who were traumatized by, first, the ongoing financial crisis, and, then the results of the recent deficit legislation.

And what I find especially appalling is that many of these cuts, and the related suffering by children, could be mitigated by doing what is both fiscally prudent and morally required, namely, raising taxes on the wealthy. What kind of nation are we that puts the needs of wealthy and powerful ahead of those who are poor and powerless?

I applaud Warren Buffett for declaring publicly that the wealthy should be taxed more. But I didn’t see any Millionaire Man March on Washington come of it. Are the wealthy so out of touch in their gated communities, private schools, and country clubs that they have lost all sense of decency? Have our elected representatives lost all sense of who they represent and why they are in government? And have they so thoroughly prostituted themselves to special interests and their own reelections that they have lost their humanity and their values?

Yes, I accept that the federal deficit is a serious problem, but no rational economist sees the answer in radical spending cuts without appropriate tax increases. From what I’ve read, not only is the recent legislation not going to cut the deficit down to size, but it’s also going to extend and worsen an already bleak short-term economic outlook and, by extension, America’s long-term economic prospects. And, again, who suffers the most from this misguided and mean-spirited policy making? The children, of course.

And this is not a partisan diatribe. Those on both sides of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves. The right for putting ideology over reason and the family values about which they so often preach. And, despite my left leanings, I have more venom for the left because they’re supposed to be the defenders of the weak and helpless. Yet they act as if don’t believe in anything and are exhibiting the worst sort of cowardice, namely the kind where they have the power to do what’s right, but lack the conviction or spine to wield that power.

In my view, all of those policy makers in Washington and the state capitols who are pushing such severe spending cuts without offsetting tax increases are both morally bankrupt and destructively myopic. This wanton disregard for America’s children, to the benefit of the wealthy, cannot be supported in any virtuous universe. And their short-sightedness is going to leave future generations of Americans — today’s children — incapable of rebuilding the America that they inherited because they were abandoned by the very people who were supposed to see them as America’s future.

I should be a pundit. According to a new study, I possess the two qualities most predictive of accurate prognostication. More on that shortly. You should be a pundit; you have as much chance of being correct in your predictions as most pundits. More on that a bit later too.

Remember the days when there were only relatively few pundits in the world. They held forth in the major newspapers and weekly magazines , and on the network morning shows. And they seemed to know what they were talking about (though I might just be having one of those “good old days” moments).

Oh, how times have changed. With the explosion of 24/7 cable news, (where there isn’t enough hard news to fill those long hours), talk radio (where actual expertise is not a job requirement), and, of course, the Internet (where anyone with a URL and an opinion has a megaphone with which to express themselves), punditry has reached new heights (or depths, depending on how you look at it). No doubt being a pundit is a great gig: notoriety, a high soapbox on which to stand and, for many, a full-time, well-paying job.

But perhaps the best part of the job is that pundits have absolutely no accountability for what they say. Have you ever read the Predictions of the Year edition of the National Enquirer? Of course not; no one would actually admit to stooping that low, despite the millions of copies sold (but I digress). But let’s just say you did so I can make a point, which is that no one ever looks back to see if any of those predictions actually came true. The only prediction most anyone has paid attention to after the fact is that May 21, 2011 was going to be Judgment Day, as predicted by Harold Camping (we woke up that Saturday, saw we were in neither Heaven or Hell, and went back to sleep).

Now, back to my original statement that you and I should be pundits. A recent study conducted by a group of college students (out of the mouths of babes, as they say) that has gotten quite a bit of press lately found that a sample of noted pundits had about as much credibility as Nostradamus and said Armageddon. Here’s the CliffsNotes summary: The predictions of 26 pundits (15 professional pundits, 9 politicians, and  two hybrids, New Gingrich and Mike Huckabee) who regularly appear on the Sunday morning news shows and in major newspapers were assessed for their accuracy.

Their findings? First, referring to my assertion that you should be a pundit, if you flipped a coin, you had about the same chance of predicting future events as most of those so-called experts. The most accurate pundit was the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I don’t find this surprising given that he is a Nobel Prize winner in economics whose predictions were forecasts of the economy. The worst pundit was Cal Thomas, the long-time columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Second, as to my belief that I should be a pundit. According to the research, the qualities most associated with the accuracy of predictions was being a liberal and not having a law degree. As someone who leans left politically and is not in possession of a law degree, I fit the bill to a T. So where do I sign up?

Admittedly, there were some potential flaws in the study that might call its findings into question (and I’m sure conservatives and lawyers have pointed them out ad nauseum). First, the sample is relatively small. Second, the predictions related to political issues may have been considerably different had the study examined the prognostications prior to and just after the 2010 midterm elections rather than the 2008 Presidential elections. As predictions of both pundits and politicians alike tend to fall along ideological fault lines, it doesn’t seem farfetched to, well, predict that the predictive accuracy would have been different. But the study does have considerable support from a much larger study conducted by the noted psychologist Philip Tetlock.

In his study of almost 300 experts and over 80,000 predictions, Tetlock found that neither education nor experience were related to the accuracy of predictions. The single greatest predictor was which of two cognitive styles that the pundits possessed, what he termed hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs have one big idea and apply it to everything, express their ideas with absolute certitude and confidence, and reject conflicting views. In contrast, foxes are base their predictions on verifiable evidence, open minded, and are receptive to opposing opinions.

Admittedly, pundits do more than just predict (mostly inaccurately) the future. They can ask questions that need to be asked. Pundits can offer perspectives and insights that can broaden our understanding of important stories. And they can illuminate issues and enlighten us. But they can do all that in about 10 minutes.

So what do we make of these studies? They are interesting and provocative and will have zero impact on anything or anyone. The punditocracy isn’t going to all of a sudden have a “come to Jesus” moment, renounce its dissembling ways, and retire to Florida. And punditry is far too profitable for those media who give it voice to ever see the light. Perhaps only an electromagnetic pulse that fries the grid (remember Dark Angel?) would do the trick (though that’s more wishful thinking than prediction).

Admirably, one goal of the Hamilton College study was to help consumers of the punditry to make better decisions about who they should listen to. How wonderfully naïve and idealistic is that! But let’s get real here. People listen to pundits not for their expertise or predictive accuracy. Rather, they follow the prognosticators who confirm their own beliefs and, as Tetlock points out, to give people a greater sense of control over a future that is unknown and, as a result, kind of scary. In other words, pundits simply feed our human weaknesses of needing to be right and needing to feel safe.

If children could vote, then I’m sure politicians in both our federal and state governments would demonstrate some actual concern for them rather than demonstrating a wanton disregard for these little citizens who are the future of America.

This profound indifference to the needs of our children is displayed starkly in how the federal and state governments are responding to the ongoing economic crisis and current obsession with reducing the federal deficit and state budget shortfalls. A scathing article titled Beyond the Geezer Wars shows how our elected representatives are doing everything they can to pander to their most reliable voting bloc, that would be our citizens over 55 years old, while leaving those who have no vote, that would be America’s children, to scrounge for scraps, literally and metaphorically, where they can find them.

According to the article, “less than 10% of the federal budget is spent on programs that benefit children–in contrast to the more than 1/3 of the federal budget that goes to fund health care and income support for the elderly.” Yet, children’s programs assume a disproportionately large slice of the spending cuts (about 22 percent) outlined in the recently released Republican budget plan; the funding for so many programs devoted to helping children, from the child tax credit to Medicaid to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to Head Start, are being axed in the name of fiscal responsibility. And what about that 1/3 of the federal budget devoted to our graying population? Well, the “geezers” get off largely scot-free, with zero cuts to their Social Security or Medicare benefits. And I’d go off on the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, but I don’t want this post to turn into a political catfight and take the focus away from its real purpose, namely, to express my incredulity at the unjust price children are paying for their elders’ fiscal negligence.

Now where’s the fairness in all this? Oh, how utterly naïve of me to use the word fair when it comes to economic policy. I don’t mean to devalue our senior citizens; they deserve our respect and appreciation for all they’ve done for our country. But what about our children, those sweet, innocent, and powerless little creatures whom we’re supposed to protect and prepare for the future?

Yet, the only future that politicians seem concerned about is the next election cycle. And remember who votes and who doesn’t. Can you imagine the outcry by our senior citizens if their entitlements were touched? There would be millions of grandpas and grandmas marching on Capitol Hill. And our elected representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are far to cowardly to do what is right for all of their constituents rather than what is in their own interests.

So who suffers then? Well, the most defenseless of our citizens. Gosh, didn’t someone say something about how the character of a nation is defined by how it treats its most vulnerable members? Sure doesn’t say much about America, does it?

And wouldn’t it be great if children could vote? In fact, these days, I would probably trust them more than our current electorate. Children smell disingenuousness (read BS) a mile away, which would preclude most politicians from getting reelected. And they also have very strong innate moral compasses, so they wouldn’t allow the neediness Americans, whatever their age, to be abandoned in the name of fiscal austerity. And tax cuts for the wealthy? A nonstarter if children could vote. Imagine the political power children could wield: a Million Toddler March on Washington, used diapers put in politicians’ mailboxes, water balloon attacks on Congress, and wrapping Capitol Hill in toilet paper.

If kids could vote, then you’d see some real change in our nation’s priorities. All of a sudden, even our neediest children would be well fed, well cared for, and well educated. Politicians wouldn’t just be reading The Pet Goat during visits to schools, but would be forced to answer the tough questions that only children can ask, for example, when will their school have its leaky roof repaired, why are their teachers being laid off, how are they going to fix our public education system, and Hannah Montana or iCarly?

I’m sorry if I’m getting a bit snarky here, but this kind of shameless neglect just lights a fire in my boxers.

What adds insult to injury is that this desertion of our children is not only callous to our children, but it’s also myopic because it will likely cripple our country in the future. Poor health care, inadequate child care, and substandard early education, the three places where children are the hardest hit, will leave many in this generation of children ill-prepared to survive, much less lead America into the future. All because children can’t vote.

You didn’t hear those three words from the liberals after their off-the-mark accusations of right-wing instigation of the Tucson tragedy. You didn’t hear them from Michele Bachmann after her history-revising Tea Party response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech. These three words are almost entirely absent from the political landscape. Yet, for America to continue to listen to its populace, for politicians to work together to find solutions to today’s problems, and for the tone of civil discourse to remain just below a deafening roar, we need to hear those three words more often.

What are those three words, you ask? “I was wrong.” Those three simple words are absolutely radioactive in our politicosphere. Politicians, pundits, pontificators, and proselytizers are terrified to utter those words, even as they are called to the carpet for inarguably erroneous statements, nonfactual facts, denial of reality, and, well, just plain lies (and don’t forget damned lies and statistics). Even being mistaken (a less painful version of being wrong) is so difficult to admit to that those members of the politocracy, when they’re painted into a corner with their wrongness, revert to the now-infamous “mistakes were made,” thus semantically distancing themselves from the very mistakes that they did, in fact, made.

Where does this aversion for those three little words come from? Unfortunately, being wrong carries with it apparent baggage of such heft that those denizens of the Beltway believe that they will be crushed under its weight. At a psychological level, being wrong can hurt one’s self-esteem and makes people feel bad about themselves. When that common human reaction is applied to the insecure, egomaniacal, and narcissistic that populate the politicosphere, an acknowledgement of incorrectness is a direct attack on their unwavering certitude about everything in which they believe.

For those true believers (of every ilk), to be wrong is a failing that produces an psychic earthquake with a magnitude of 8.0 that would send shock waves through their entire belief system upon which those mistakes were built. And because their rightness is so righteous, to admit otherwise is an assault on their moral foundations. It’s not surprising that synonyms for wrong include blasphemous, depraved, evil, indecent, ungodly, and wicked. Who would want to be associated with such words.

The perceived price to pay for being wrong extends well beyond the walls of our crania. In the eyes of others, it opens the door to the possibility that whatever else one says or does may also be wrong. And the perceived social costs of confessing the sin of wrongness are devastating: embarrassment, shame, and loss of public esteem, credibility, authority, and influence.

We live in a popular culture in which any failing, of which being wrong is one of its most egregious kinds, makes one a failure worthy of disgrace and ostracism. We also live in a culture of exceptionalism in which an admission of being wrong is seen as a blow to America’s national identity, esteem, and pride. And, of course, in our political culture, being wrong becomes a cudgel to be used against one’s detractors and enemies to discredit all future assertions and actions.

Yet, I believe that “cowboying up” to being wrong is actually a sign of strength that most people respect and admire, particularly against the current political backdrop of denial, ignoring, victimization, deflection, and equivocation, which are among the worst kinds of cowardice. It shows confidence without arrogance, reverence for what is right rather than fealty to what is expedient, and respect for others as well as respect for oneself.

Such an admission also says “I’m human” and stating that which should be obvious is, these days, an act of courage in a political world populated by many who have the hubris to believe that they have the omniscience of a deity rather than the limitations of humanity. Lastly, being able to say, “I was wrong” also says to one’s detractors, ” If I’m tough enough to admit I’m wrong, I’m tough enough to withstand your Don Quixote attacks.”

I believe that there’s far too much talking the talk and not enough walking the walk around here. And we have to start somewhere. I’m ready to walk the plank of culpability and accept the consequences. At the beginning of this piece I noted that the liberals were amiss in connecting the right-wing noise machine to the Tucson tragedy. Though I hate to admit it, I need those three little words myself right now. So here they are: “I was wrong.” Anyone care to join me?

In the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy, there has been much renewed discussion about the tenor of political discourse in America and the need for a return to a more civil tone among those with divergent views. But even such a horrible national event couldn’t tear many in the politicosphere from their ideological high horses. Yes, after the initial burst of partisan finger pointing, a temporary truce was established in which leaders from each side struck just the right pose of civility and conciliation for the nation to see to help the “collective healing,” before returning the following week to business as usual. It reminds me of how a bitterly divorced couple puts on an air of unity to see their now-adult child get married, then immediately after the “I dos” returns to their previous state of loathing.

This topic is near and dear to me as I have attempted to maintain a respectful tone in my blogging (with, admittedly, a few false steps), even when I occasionally drift into Partisanland. I have also written about why our political discourse is so toxic and offered suggestions on how to encourage a more civil tone our political conversations. I even made a short-lived attempt to organize a National Civil Discourse Day. Inevitably, it died a quick and painless death.

And, like so many Americans, I was moved by President Obama’s speech in Tucson. But the feeling didn’t last long; the inspiration turned to futility as soon as I returned to the real world of politics. Despite my efforts to maintain a modicum of optimism toward the hope for a calmer and more reasoned tone in the politicosphere, I have come to the conclusion that it is a pipe dream that will never happen.

In a utopian world, ideals would trump the coarser motivators in life. Respect, rationality, and maturity would dictate civil discourse, even in the most noxious political environs. But ideals no longer seem to have a place in our culture. Other unruly forces, including greed, narcissism, arrogance, and power, trump the quiet and restrained strength of civility and have become the unwritten law of the political landscape.

There is simply too much to be gained from angry discourse for it to stop. Cable news channels, political web sites, and bloggers profit financially from the vitriol. The egomaniacal ranting-and-raving talking heads get the attention they crave. The lunatic fringe, however small in number and ill informed, can be heard above the already eardrum-breaking political din. The ideological bases are given red meat to satisfy their voracious appetites. And those who suffer the most, the disenfranchised, helpless, and hopeless, are able to turn their fear and desperation into anger and determination.

Is there any hope? In the politicosphere, I believe the answer is no. The current zeitgeist is just too rotten and maggot infested to offer any hope of a change in tone. But for those of the populace who aren’t ideologically arrogant or rigid, can separate the truth from the spin, are still governed by reason and the desire for respectful engagement, and not willing to lower themselves into the political sewer, there is a smidgen of hope. And, to quote our president, the “audacity of hope” is all that we have right now.

There have been a whole lot of emotions flying around this fall leading up to and in the aftermath of the mid-term elections in November. Before November 2^nd, there was mostly frustration and anger on the Right and fear and resignation on the Left. After the “shellacking” at the polls, another set of emotions kicked in. For the victorious Right, there was euphoria, excitement, and the inevitable righteous smugness. For the defeated Left, there was devastation, grief, and the inevitable despair.

Yet, with the elections several weeks in our rearview mirror and the intensity of emotions having ebbed for most people, there is another emotion that has persisted in me throughout this season of political unrest and upheaval. It is an emotion that, based on my decidedly unscientific poll of people of all political persuasions around the U.S., is shared by those on both sides of the aisle.

What is that emotion, you ask? Disgust, plain and simple. Though I will likely be accused by those on the Right of engaging in sour-grapes sentimentality from one of those citizens on the Left who got royally spanking by the election results, my hope is that I can show that disgust is an emotion that all reasonable (now there’s a hot-button word!) people should feel during these turbulent political times.

First, a brief tutorial on the emotion of disgust. However unpleasant it is to experience, whether smelling rotten garbage, seeing pus from a wound, or hearing a truly distasteful joke (I feel disgust just typing those examples), disgust evolved as an emotion central to our survival. Its primary purpose has been to safeguard us from ingesting contaminated substances.

But, as often happens with our evolutionarily adaptive reactions, disgust can now be elicited by experiences that in no way threaten our physical well being (at least directly), but, nonetheless, have a significant impact on our lives.

There is much to be disgusted about in today’s political climate for members of both parties, with the equivalent of rancid meat, human excrement, and animal innards everywhere. Let me count the ways:

1. Disingenuous and corrupt politicians who seem not to care about their constituents.
2. Policies and legislation that seem to favor the rich and powerful.
3. Digital soapboxes that offer little beyond disinformation and vitriol (you can pick your cable channel poison depending on your political leanings).
4. Lack of civility in our political discourse (a topic which I have discussed and felt disgusted about in the past).
5. An unwillingness of citizens and politicians alike to find common ground in the name of solutions (however imperfect) that would actually help people.

But the piece de resistance of disgust that I feel is directed at the obscene amounts of money that were spent (and, in my view, wasted) in the Congressional races leading up to November 2^nd. In fact, around $4 billion, a new record! California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman alone spent an estimated $160 million of her own money on her campaign…and lost. Good to know that money can’t buy everything. On a side note, the research indicates that only about 11 percent of multi-millionaire, self-funded campaigns result in a victory, so you’d expect they would think twice before throwing good money after bad. But I suppose when you’re that rich, you assume you will always win. And think of all the good that money could have done if it were spent on jobs or education or other worthy causes. Of course, it is a free country and these people can spend their money any way they wish. I’m just saying.

Though the reasons for feeling disgust differ significantly depending on your political views, you would think that those of differing ideologies, but with the shared experience of disgust, would be motivated to find common ground that would alleviate the revolting olfactory onslaught. Unfortunately, that communal disgust seems to actually prevent us from coming together.

Research has shown that feelings of disgust cause people to become more severe in their judgments and hold more negative attitudes toward people who are different than they. According to other research, those who are politically conservative have a higher sensitivity to disgust than do liberals (not getting partisan here; just stating the research).

One theory is that primitive peoples were threatened by rival tribes that could transmit diseases to which they lacked immunity. Today’s disgust toward those with opposing views may be our way of not contracting the diseases of conservatism (if you’re a liberal) and liberalism (if you’re conservative), both of which, from where each group stands, must assuredly lead to a slow and painful death.

I wonder where independents score on the disgust-sensitivity tests. From what I’ve seen, they respond to the aroma coming from whichever party is currently in power because they are the easiest scapegoat and we have to blame someone (other than ourselves) for our problems. Given that independents seem to decide elections these days, the challenge for political candidates is to figure out what causes them to feel the most disgust. If someone can bottle that, they will have future elections in the bag (along with the previously mentioned putrid meat, vomit, and other gross-out substances that may be able to sway elections).

As for getting rid of my disgust, I don’t see it happening anytime soon. There are no signs that the stench emanating from Washington is going to be replaced by the scent of roses in the foreseeable future. I guess my only chance of changing my dominant olfactive stimulation is to stop reading about politics. But then the even harsher stink of ignorance would probably disgust me even more.

As distasteful as it was to see the financial, insurance, and automotive industries bailed out for their greedy and reckless behavior, it seems clear that President Bush’s and President Obama’s decisions to do so were correct. Allowing the “too big to fail” companies to fail, however much they deserved to die a slow and painful death, was tantamount to an economic catastrophe.

But there is another even-larger sector of our economy that deserved the same designation of “too big to fail,” yet has been largely neglected by the federal government. I’m talking about consumers. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of America’s GDP, so the “little people” are the real engine of our economy. You wouldn’t know it though by the federal government’s rather pathetic response to stimulating the economy.

The $786 billion stimulus package was a lukewarm attempt to do just that; the majority of mainstream economists agree that it kept the train from derailing, but it was insufficient to get our economy rolling along at high speed again. There have been other attempts to get the economy chugging along again by, for example, extending unemployment benefits and offering tax cuts to spur businesses to hire, but the former aren’t sustainable (and businesses know that) and the latter don’t offer sufficient incentive (because demand shows little sign of picking up). But there wasn’t the political will to do more. Republicans decided that the federal deficit (or obstructing any and all Obama initiatives) should take priority over getting the economy humming again. Democrats were more concerned with the recent midterm elections (and look what good that did them) than showing some backbone in support of their suffering constituents.

All the talk now is about lower taxes, encouraging investment, and getting businesses to start hiring. Yet these attempts seem to ignore a few basic tenets of free-market economics that cause a giant catch-22 even a layperson can’t miss. Until more consumers have jobs (or don’t fear losing the jobs they have) and regain the confidence that the economy is going to recover, they are going reduce their spending to a bare minimum and sit on the money they have because they can’t count on getting more in the future. At the same time, businesses are expected to hire new workers to create those jobs that people need so consumers will then start buying stuff to jumpstart the economy. But any businessperson worth his or her salt would be crazy to expand unless there was increased demand for their goods or services. But there isn’t any demand because consumers are either broke or saving what they have rather than spending because they have either lost their jobs or are afraid they will lose their jobs. You see the vicious cycle and circular mess we are in.

It doesn’t require a Ph.D. in Economics (or Psychology, for that matter) to see the obvious: The way to get the economy going is to view consumers as too big to fail and get money into their hands so they can start spending again. With more demand, businesses will be motivated to hire more workers which, in a virtuous cycle, will put more money in consumers’ pockets who will then use that money to buy more stuff, which encourage businesses to expand, etc., ad infinitum.

As has been discussed widely, the seemingly obvious choice is for the federal government to create jobs. But how best to do that? One of the most widely discussed options is to create a Manhattan Project for our country’s infrastructure because it kills three birds with one stone. Tons of jobs would be created in the private sector. The impending national disaster, comprised of deteriorating roads, unsafe bridges, an antiquated electric grid, and crumbling waterways, would be averted. And the foundation would be laid, both economically and structurally, for continued growth deep into the 21^st century. Yes, it will add the federal deficit, but it will also provide much needed fuel for the engine of our economy that is now sputtering on fumes, but when rolling along again at full speed will be capable of paying down the deficit.

Clearly, putting money into the pockets of consumers isn’t a panacea for all that ails our country economically now. And we do need to focus on reducing the deficit once the economy reaches a downhill section of track. We will likely need to — No, don’t say it! — increase some taxes and cut spending (anyone who thinks the budget can be balanced with just spending cuts is living in Neverland). But it is a step in the right direction. And it would also provide a boost beyond the economic benefits to the “little people” because it would show us that our government understands that consumers are too big to fail and that it actually cares about us rather than just “giving love” to those who just filled their campaign coffers.

The $64,000,000,000 question now is, with the midterm elections behind us, are the Democrats and Republicans ready to work together and find a solution (even if it doesn’t reach the level of their respective ideological purity tests) that would actually put the interests of their constituents ahead of political mud wrestling? I’m not holding my breath.

Is civility dead? It sure seems so. In recent years, the quality of discourse in America has declined dramatically. Rarely in discussions of any import these days, whether politics, religion, the economy, education, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the list goes on, is there a respectful exchange of ideas. Instead, such interactions are either one-sided or full of ad hominem attacks or self-serving misinformation. Just watch or listen to most political campaign ads these days. The founders of the United States of America would roll over in their graves if they could see how the country and political system they created has devolved in recent years.

Examples of those who lead the “incivility movement” are easy to come by. On the right, there’s Congressman Joe “You lie” Wilson, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and, of course, the Three Horsemen of the Conservative Apocalypse, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly. And just so you don’t think that those on the left are holier than thou, you have Congressman Alan Grayson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and even, occasionally, Vice President Joe Biden. All are media darlings because they all make great copy. And they are quietly encouraged by the establishment. Their indiscrete comments and coronary-inducing rants go viral through new media such as YouTube and Twitter. They energize the base. And, especially for liberals, the latter provocateurs show that they are tough and aren’t going to be kicked around by those conservative bullies.

Bottom of Form

You might ask, so what? Why is civility so important? So what if they’re a little rude? It sure makes good theater (and ratings), doesn’t it?

But civility is about something far more important than how people comport themselves with others. Rather, civility is an expression of a fundamental understanding and respect for the laws, rules, and norms (written and implicit) that guide its citizens in understanding what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For a society to function, people must be willing to accept those strictures. Though still in the distance, the loss of civility is a step toward anarchy, where anything goes; you can say or do anything, regardless of their consequences.

What has caused such vitriol in what is now our uncivil discourse? Are passions any more intense than they were in past generations? I don’t think so. Is there more political polarization than in the past? It sure looks that way, yet research indicates that there has been little movement in political views in recent decades.

Perhaps there has always been uncivil discourse, but, because of the limits in the size of the audience that it could reach, we rarely heard it. How times have changed. Due to the emergence of cable television, talk radio, and Internet, “squeaky wheels” now have a means of making their voices heard by millions. The cable news channels and talk radio have given a soapbox to self-righteous egomaniacs who incite the lunatic fringe with impunity, have little regard for the facts, and no real concern for an actual discussion of the issues. The Internet has provided a very large megaphone to anyone who wishes to express their opinion.

Maybe uncivil discourse is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Better uncivil discourse than no discourse at all?

So is there any hope of a return to civil discourse? I’m not very optimistic. We can only hope that those who reside somewhere within the less noisy confines of the political middle continue to speak their minds – civilly, of course – and don’t let the cacophony from the fringes drown out reasoned and respectful dialogue.