'Everybody does it' a childish defense for bullying in life or politics

President Kennedy assassinated in 1963

"Everybody does it. It doesn't matter who they are, they just can't get along." This childish response to argument helps foster bullying and bad behavior in society and politics, including the Congress and other areas of government as well as in daily life.

Those of us who have raised or taught children know that when there is an altercation between two or three or more children, usually no one takes responsibility for it. The fingers point instead to one another, without anyone admitting or finding out who really started trouble. Often everyone gets punished when the culprit is unknown.  And if that culprit is discovered, then the children begin to talk about "everyone is doing it,"especially if that guilty person has a level of control and/or popularity within the group.

We respond to political figures just like we respond to children's arguments. We punish the group without acknowledging the source of trouble. Often we don't even try to find that source with the argument "everyone does it."

In the case of the episodes of gun violence, demonstrated by the high-profile shooting of Gabriel Gifford, Congresswoman from Arizona a few years ago, the school shooting at Sandy Hook, and most recently in Washington State, the atmosphere of hate has been festering for some time.

Clarence W. Dupnik, the sheriff of the county where Gabriel Gifford was killed, was reported to say shortly afterward in a news conference,about an  "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry,"helping to fuel violence.  He spoke strongly of that atmosphere as provoking those with serious mental health problems to act out their violent fantasies. An atmosphere of hate, he said, facilitates problems. He tells us we must all get at the source.

The source of that,according to the reporting of the Christian Science Monitor, is the extreme rhetoric, building up since 2006. Fox News fosters much of it with its news "commentators," hardly news at all. Whether that is Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin, the right remains central to this ugly speech in a very special way.

For example, as David Neiwart pointed out in Crooks and Liars, how Glenn Beck called for kicking California out of the Union, and also referred to Barack Obama as a Marxist, a communist, a socialist and later a fascist. Emails circulate these rumors, and the larger in bulk they become, the more people believe them before hearing the truth.

The argument 'everyone does it' while applauding the angry and sarcastic rhetoric, reinforces bullying and ugly arguments in places where there is vulnerability for that sort of thing. Folks hear aggressive commentators, and people using epithets in reference to public figures; and then its echoes by their political representatives, and then they believe what they hear. Louisiana is one of those vulnerable places where this takes place.  As an example, a few years ago, shortly after Representative John Fleming of Louisiana won his seat in the House, he encouraged separatism and referred to Obama as a socialist during one of his first meetings with constituents following the election. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana did the same during the health care debates. Both represent central and northern Louisiana where the Klan flourished and still has many members. Yet few in Louisiana in the press have pointed to this aggressive language as initiating political bullying and the lessons from history it undercuts in the process.

In fact that lack of admission of who starts what is the problem in politics now, just as it is with bullying in the classroom or the office. After the heat of the present discussions following the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford and the shooting at Sandy Hook and in Washington State, people will likely continue the same response. Fingers will point around the room, not getting at the source.  In fact after the recent midterm election there was a raft of pictures and political statements attacking not just President Obama's leadership but the character of his wife, Michelle, and elements of their private life.  This has been ongoing since Obama was first elected in 2008, but the increase in bullying continues in a climate where the free-for-all seems to be the accepted standard on social media as well as discourse among people everywhere. Strongly worded epithets are part of the verbal violence that psychologists underline as personally abusive.  On a broader scale, the same type of rhetoric creates a national atmosphere of verbal abuse that can lead to the perpetuation of violence.

The rhetoric has been so abusive that newspapers remind people to keep their comments moderate and to avoid angry, personal attacks on the President and others, especially in relationship to politics.

The concern about violent speech and abusive language was part of the discussion following the death of  President John F. Kennedy, who was shot in Dallas, Texas 61 years ago.  Kennedy, who had become identified with civil rights and social liberalism, was called socialist and Communist at the time by anti-Communist Protestant groups in particular, especially in the South where the angry rhetoric against integration was at its zenith.  In reflection of the events of that time, Forbes magazine writes that modern Democrats would see Kennedy as more like former President Reagan, however, as he was adamantly anti- Communist and although deeply religious, not a pawn of the Catholic Church.  As the images of mourners were shown on television, some folks wondered aloud whether or not the verbal violence created the atmosphere that allowed for the assassination of the President.

Talk show Stan Solomon offers the extreme speech recited in generalities by others not so extreme but who listen and believe that if it is said often enough, it must be true.  Solomon has observed that Obama is a Muslim, married to a transgender woman or a man whom Obama knew in college and that the aim of the President is to help impose Shariah law on America.  He and the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America then declared they were preparing themselves, and others should as well, to fight back.

The Southern Poverty Law Center wonders also about the present political atmosphere and the welfare of the current President, Barack Obama.

Experts at the Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center have for some time said hate speech has increased and hate groups as well. SPLC has been especially concerned about the hate speech from anti-immigrant groups, many of which exist in Arizona.

And psychologists in numerous citations continue to remind us of the hurtful nature of verbal abuse and its risks to individual welfare, abuse that can create a lifetime of trouble that can exceed physical abuse.  Could it also perpetuate physical violence on a wider scale?  Experts maintain it is possible that it has facilitated the aggressive nature of government and personal interaction as well as the type of school shootings that the socially deprived or emotionally disturbed commit in response.

Instead of countering this with a change of behavior, the defense is, "Well everyone does it." But the truth, in fact, is everyone doesn't. The problem of bullying and bad political and social behavior starts somewhere and has to be stopped. Those who refuse to examine the source, and instead say "everyone does it" allow the bullying and the violent speech to thrive.

It starts in childhood, continues on the playground, and never ends unless those who want bullying to end in all its forms tackle the source itself and will not be satisfied with pointing fingers.

Ugly American haunts U.S. foreign relations

The Ugly American film portrayed the arrogance of Americans that Kennedy attempted to end with the Peace Corps ideas.[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---"I'm an American.  I drink beer, eat meat, and speak English!"printed on a tee shirt worn by a gray-haired man watching Fox News at a motel on a Saturday morning is a reminder of that ugly American image so often considered by people around the world as representing U.S. opinions about others.  A tee shirt slogan tells anyone who reads it of an arrogant attitude that continues to foster suspicion and distrust that haunts American relations internationally.

The man sat in the middle of the motel breakfast room where everyone entering could see his shirt and recognize a negative attitude about anyone perceived as different.  It was reinforced by a message on Fox News that repeatedly focused on Obamacare and the shortcomings of the current President, Barack Obama in putting diplomacy ahead of force against those who differ with American ideas.  Surrounding the man were a group of people traveling from the United Kingdom, visiting the United States.  The message on a shirt is surely one they might remember when they travel back to Europe, underlining once again how what Americans think and say in casual circumstances becomes a permanent image for others about attitude and prejudices that can influence foreign policy.

On another occasion, in Bali, the couple at the hotel desk, shouting about "those people here" giving bad service echoed through the lobby, as people stood and stared while they listened to rude remarks by an American in a public arena.  International travelers paused to grimace slightly, shrug and turn away.  Americans traveling in another country, represented by the loud and boorish statements, communicate to other travelers, and to the Balinese service personnel, once again the ugly side of American behavior and beliefs.

The film, "The Ugly American" made in 1963 offered a glimpse of that American attitude in the personality of the conservatives who debated the appointment of Harrison MacWhite, played by Marlon Brando, as Ambassador to an Asian country named Sarkan, a newly developed nation.  In the course of the film, MacWhite tangles with the local leadership over the building of Freedom Road, a U.S. sponsored highway considered to be an example of American imperialism.  When MacWhite is unable to complete his assignment and returns to the US mainland, this summary is provided in a critic's overview of the film, "He explains in an interview with the press that to help the countries of Southeast Asia, Americans must understand their internal problems before inflicting a way of life upon them. As his words are carried to the United States by television, an uninterested viewer switches off his set."The statement becomes the core realization of how an American diplomat makes wrong choices and ends up bungling his job, as the example of that ugly American, with the uninterested viewer reflecting the attitude that it really does not matter.

In the 1960's President John F. Kennedy hoped to establish a different image of America as a country that provided service to underdeveloped countries, through an organization called the Peace Corps.  The idea was to send Americans to live and work with residents in countries that needed support in education, industrial development, agriculture and other areas.  The concept had been the brainchild of Hubert Humphrey, then U.S. Senator from Minnesota, who had opposed Kennedy in the Presidential primaries,  but the implementation of the program began under the Kennedy administration.  The hope was to change that image of the ugly American so that foreign relations might also improve.

Despite the Peace Corps, foreign aid, and Americans devoting time, money and effort to help people around the world, especially during disasters, what many people see is that boorish individual who wears a shirt that declares he represents what the United States truly believes.  So efforts to reach out to others are seen as manipulative as opposed to caring and concerned.  Perhaps it is the reason why folks take the help, then turn their backs on reciprocity in international relations, especially when significant differences arise and the United States needs help in persuading people to take action in some special way.  That action might be global immunization programs or difficulties created by global warming, as two examples of areas where universal support is critical for many.  With the ugly American image, portrayed by the media, repeated on tee shirt slogans and bumper stickers and reinforced by the behavior of folks traveling to other countries, it becomes increasingly difficult for the United States to sustain leadership when global action is needed.

As foreign diplomats grapple with international problems, climate change, the potential of Russia's encroachment into East European countries and other issues, the value of American leadership is important in managing crises in a way that might avert global conflict.  A message on a tee shirt can be a monumental assertion to those who watch and listen and wonder if Americans care about anything or anyone but themselves.

While Kennedy's pronouncements and programs are often cited as representing the best of America's leadership and stature, the undermining of the message of caring and inclusion continues to stress diplomacy.  The ugly American is a reminder to many that the country that says "I care" and offers tangentially leadership and hope for a free world for everyone continues to struggle with itself and its mission.

A message on a tee shirt for some might simply be incidental on a day when many things occur, however it represents to others a much larger issue, and that is how we relate and think about our neighbors can offer a far better protection against aggression than the big stick or the gun can do.