Verbal abuse in politics interferes with our moral well-being

Famous book on the nature of language

Carol Forsloff - Mental health experts have defined verbal abuse as just as hurtful as physical abuse, and in some cases it has been punished with severe sanctions.  Yet in politics it remains a pattern, the type used by many people in government or running for political office, but how about the rest of us?

If all of us had equal education, similar backgrounds and similar training on the nature of argument, then political discussions would be more of a worthy experience.  In fact, there was a time in history when men of great stature did assail the ideas of one another, and even thrust verbal arrows of sorts, at their opponents.  But there was a different tone to the arguments; those with countering views may have been considered ignorant if they didn't happen to agree with a point, but they were not cast as the devil himself.

These are different days.  All over the world, emotional distance is created by an Internet that was supposed to bring people closer.  Is the communication itself a bad thing?  In my opinion, it is not.  It is simply used that way, and in ways that some people use to avoid close relationships.

Language not only allows us to communicate ideas but also our emotions, and recent studies show that the words we use eventually help to create what we become.  So if our pattern is to assail, condemn in vitriolic language, we become, in essence,  a hateful, spiteful person.  It removes us even further from what we might say we want to achieve.

Besides experts tell us that abusive language is indeed abuse and the effects of it can be traumatic for children and adults.

Sesu Hayakawa wrote a book entitled "Language in Thought and Action" that looks at the historical and cultural patterns of speech and reflects on our human development.  Language helps transform our cultures, move us ahead, or create barriers beyond which we cannot cross.

If you belong to a group, where the intent is to denigrate everyone of an opposite view in vitriolic language, will that aid your moral and emotional development, enhance your self-concept truly and move you ahead in ethical and spiritual ways?  Not if social scientists are right.  Instead it paints your personality in ways that become isolating and that deflects love rather than attracts it.

Political discussions have descended to the worst.  With the recent Supreme Court decision that allows big corporations to involve themselves as persons, we are likely to see big money buy even bigger and bigger mouths that spew hatred and lies in all directions.

Should we then assail each other in much the same way?  Or should we learn the rules mental health experts tell us that discusses issues, events, ideas without personalizing the agenda.  Experts say we must if we are to stay individually and collectively healthy.

If we don't follow those rules, discussions often turn to name-calling and name-calling and what is ordinarily called, both in the law and in mental health, verbal abuse. And that can lead to even worse problems, as language experts and psychologists declare.

The Civility Project ends but desire for civility remains

[caption id="attachment_4313" align="alignleft" width="286" caption="Waddy Butler Wood House"][/caption]




( Editors: a must read) Kay Mathews - Only days before the tragic
shooting spree in Tucson, Mark DeMoss announced the end of the Civility
Project.  DeMoss, an evangelical
Republican, founded the organization and asked Lanny Davis, a Jewish Democrat,
to join him.


Waddy Butler Wood House - offices of Citizens for Civil Discourse

Prompted by, and concerned
about, the vitriolic tone in American politics, in January 2009 the
organization asked all members of Congress and state governors to sign a
Civility Pledge, which reads:

1. I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.

2. I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree
with them.

3. I will stand against
incivility when I see it.

Three politicians, out of 585
who received letters inviting them to sign the pledge, actually signed:  Republican Representatives Frank Wolfe
(Virginia) and Sue Myrick (North Carolina) along with independent Senator
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) who caucuses with Democrats.

In his Jan. 3 letter to the
three Civility Pledge signers informing them of the dissolution of the Civility
Project, DeMoss wrote:

Perhaps
one of the most surprising results of this project has been the tone and
language used by many of those posting comments on our website and following
articles on various media websites about the project. Many of them could not be
printed or spoken in public media due to vulgar language and vicious personal
attacks. Sadly, a majority of these came from fellow conservatives.

The Jan. 8 massacre in Tucson,
resulting in the deaths of six people and serious injuries to others including
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ),  put a
spotlight on civility in America, as defined by the tone of the national
discourse.

One individual who has called
for civil debate is David Gergen.
Gergen, who has worked for both Republican and Democratic presidents, is
currently a director at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a
senior political analyst at CNN.

As it turns out, however,
Gergen’s own Facebook page is not immune from vitriolic comments.  Gergen posted a note on Jan. 13 to his 5,000
Facebook friends titled “Thoughtful and Respectful Debate” in order to address
the “ugly” discourse.

Gergen wrote:

Thank
you to to all who have been involved in thoughtful discussion here for the last
few years. Unfortunately, during the last five days the conversation has become
ugly. For this reason entire postings were deleted. In the past, it was rare
for a comment to be removed. It is important that we all know and agree, that
the only type of conversation accepted here is thoughtful and respectful
debate.  We all have begun to heal and
find peace after the shocking massacre that occurred in Tucson. Let us all
continue with respectful conversation. All opinions are welcome. Thank you for
being involved and respectful. Do you agree?

Given that Gergen deleted many
comments, it is unknown what the subject matter of the conversations was.  However, the “last five days” were, of
course, the days since the Tucson shooting.
It is likely then that the ugly comments focused upon the debate
surrounding that incident.

One person who brought civility
back to the national discourse was Pres. Obama when he spoke at the Tucson
Memorial service on Jan. 12.  Partisan
bickering took a backseat to words of inspiration, hope, and unity.

In fact, Pres. Obama’s speech prompted
some conservative pundits, speechwriters, and others, including Glenn Beck, to
utter words praising the president.

After the Tucson Memorial,
Reverend Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, appeared on The
Rachel Maddow Show and reminded viewers that Pres. Obama’s words of comfort are
very important, “but comfort is the beginning of the process, not the end.”

Gaddy recalled Obama’s entreaty
that we don’t turn on each other, and then added these words of advice.  “But, we have to turn to each other and when
we turn to each other, to talk honestly with each other, that’s not easy,”
Gaddy said.  “It’s no easier today than
it was before last Saturday.”

Gaddy’s comments suggest that
desiring civil discourse is laudable; yet, an enduring civil debate will only
be accomplished through turning to each other and talking honestly with each
other.

Gergen’s note on “Thoughtful and
Respectful Debate” provides a good example as do the words spoken by Pres.
Obama at the Tucson Memorial.  “Only a more
civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a
nation,” Obama said.

And, perhaps, the founders of
the Civility Project will reconsider ending the organization.  Surely more politicians will now be open to
signing a Civility Pledge.

Resources:

The Civility Project:  http://www.civilityproject.org/

David Gergen’s Facebook
page:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/david.gergen?sk=info

David
Gergen’s Note:  http://www.facebook.com/civilityproject?v=wall#!/notes/david-gergen/thoughtful-and-respectful-debate/492371033121

The Rachel Maddow Show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41049223

Text of Pres. Obama’s Tucson
Memorial speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028366-503544.html

Bedwetting at holidays and in political conversation

Carol Forsloff - When the Democrats lost the Senate seat once occupied by Ted Kennedy to a Republican, David Plouffe observed  the response should not be an episode of bed-wetting, word play on its shame and what is a special problem for adults and children during holidays.

Its' the holiday season that finds people visiting friends and family, perhaps staying overnight either in hotels or motels or in a friend's spare room.  There are folks, however, for whom that is a problem, even if there is only the occasional bed-wetting occurrence, because these people cannot often predict when accidents can occur.

At one time my husband and I ran a small bed and breakfast with a single suite.  After a holiday weekend when a couple had stayed in the suite, I discovered afterward the sheet was soaked on one side with urine. The couple were adults, and one had wet the bed.

I was astounded.

The couple had already paid and left when I went to take off the sheets to change and make the bed to prepare for future guests. I hadn't seen this sort of thing at our place. Neither one of the couple had said anything. I didn't say anything either, just changed the sheets and said nothing. But this unique experience is shared by others who manage bed and breakfasts, hotels and motels in places around the world.



Bed-wetting, most people might think, is what happens with young children. Adults have the problem too. There is considerable shame involved for those with the issue. They often don't stay overnight, worrying about what might happen. Perhaps one member of the couple didn't think it would happen and was too embarrassed to say anything, since we usually sit with our guests at breakfast.

It turns out that 26 million adults in the United States have urinary incontinence and might wet the bed at night. The condition is called nocturnal enuresis. It can occur after some medical procedures, develop for some as they age, or be part of a problem that has existed over a number of years and hasn't been faced by the sufferer. Experts maintain the problem shouldn't be treated lightly as it can have serious effects on a person's life. For example, it can affect sleep, relationships and can be financially difficult because of the cost of bedding changes.

There are medications to help and support groups for people with this problem, so there is no need to hide from it since information exists about it. The Simon Foundation is devoted to helping people deal with the problem, understand and admit they have it, and be able to then seek treatment.

The National Incontinence Organization provides products for care including sanitary supplies and special creams. It also has information for those with bed-wetting problems.

Organizations declare the problem of bed-wetting is under-reported and 2/3 of those between the ages of 30 and 70 haven't discussed bladder issues with their physicians. So information is provided by the National Association for Continence to help people learn about the condition of bed-wetting and be able to deal with it and assist others to understand.

I did nothing; there was nothing to do when bed-wetting occurred in that suite. I could only wish whoever responsible get medical help for the problem so that shame might not get in the way.  And that politicians not increase that shame by making parallel reminders.