'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.

How we speak can affect ways people treat us

 Carol Forsloff - "It's likely that a bilingual Arab Israeli will consider Arabs more positively in an Arab speaking environment than a Hebrew speaking
environment." This was the finding that supports a person's language might influence how he thinks about others.

The language a person speaks can impact how he or she feels about other cultures.  For example, the Jew who speaks Arabic will have a better feeling towards Arabs than the Jew who does not.  The same is true with other groups, according to a recent study.

The subjects in this study several years ago were Arab Israelis, fluent in both Hebrew and Arabic, who were students at Hebrew-speaking universities and colleges.  Researchers Shai Danziger of Ben-Gurion University and Robert Ward of Bangor University took into consideration the problems between Arabs and Israelis to design an experiment that looked at how the students think differently in Arabic and Hebrew.

The study used a computer test to flash certain words to reflect bias and to determine subjects association with certain words as positive or negative.  The Arab Israeli volunteers found it easier to associate Arab names with "good" trait words and Jewish names with "bad" trait words than Arab names with "bad" trait words and Jewish names with "good" trait words.

But this effect was much stronger when the test was given in Arabic; in the Hebrew session, they showed less of a positive bias toward Arab names over Jewish names.

"The language we speak can change the way we think about other people," is the summation of the study. The results are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Shai Danziger, the author, learned both Hebrew and English as a child. "I am a bilingual and I believe that I actually respond differently in Hebrew than I do in English. I think in English I'm more polite than I am in Hebrew," he says. "People can exhibit different types of selves in different environments. This suggests that language can serve as a cue to bring forward different selves."

Language in general affects how we behave, something that a learned scholar and later politician told us in his treatise called Language in Thought and Action that people of all philosophies embrace in some ways, including atheists.  His thesis was that language affects how we think and behave and how others behave toward us.  It is considered a classic in linguistics.

We have examples of verbal abuse as well as verbal pronouncements that are positive that can affect change.  It is what we decide, it turns out, in how we choose to interact with others in language that affects how we may be treated in turn.

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.

How what we say ends up as "killer" speech

[caption id="attachment_17808" align="alignleft" width="403"] James Holmes, mass murderer, Colorado movie theater shooting[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "Why are so many gun advocates being executed with single gunshots? It is certainly not their fellow gun enthusiasts. Perhaps the daisy hugging liberal nutjobs??? (We now have Obama saying he loves guns too by reason of his saying that he goes skeet shooting at Camp David "all the time", with photographic evidence as well. Barbarian in Chief??) Comments such as these offer the question: Does our language increase the risk of violence?

Name-calling abuses abound on social media. This individual, an anonymous poster on an article about a parent being heckled during a Congressional hearing on gun control, takes the moniker "Skip to my Lu."  It is, however, the overall language of name-calling and verbal violence that enters the gun debate, most often from gun advocates declaring their rights in aggressive terms. But what are the underlying features of verbal confrontations and the psychological features of the debate that might reflect the risks from those who demand their rights yet do so using words that are designed to inflame, to hurt, to abuse?

An anonymous poster on an article about newspapers printing maps showing gun owners had this to say, infusing, as often occurs, religious statements among the epithets and name-calling abuses:  "You may well be one of those who have taken God out of the schools and society by asking HIM to vacate or be invisible in spirit? I dunno. But, I do know MANY places and schools where he formerly resided are now a Devil's den. HINT: when you are among the Devils, it is best to have a defender accompany you. I have TWO...my guns and my LORD ...both are with me ALL the time."

So the non-believer is placed into the gun rights group of those with "devilish" intent. On Facebook recently, a user called everyone who advocated gun control, many of whom are musicians who simply were responding to the lack of it in the United States, "communists" and therefore "dangerous".

But worse are those whose language escalates to threats, often seen in these tight verbal confrontations. It is that escalation that offers an atmosphere that creates additional stress for those involved in the gun debate.

In psychological lexicon, verbal abuse is "the use of language to manipulate, control, ridicule, insult, humiliate, belittle, vilify, and show disrespect and disdain to another, and is often a component of other types of abuse. All name calling, and epithets directed at another are abusive."

Although research is limited on the risks of verbal violence, what is known is that those who suffer abuse have a higher mortality rate, especially when the underlying verbal threats are translated into physical ones. Verbal mistreatment of children has been found to develop anxiety, depression, delayed mental development, and general health problems; and externalized behaviors that can produce aggressive behaviors in adulthood.

Many of the killers involved in mass shootings have had a history of abuse, at school or at home, bullying, and verbal violence. It is this language that helps to plant seeds of pain for children that over time can cause disturbance that evolves into a serious act of violence. Mass killers often see themselves as being victimized, then lash out against those perceived as being those believed to be responsible, even if that perception is distorted. They essentially feel a lack of support from others. Language becomes part of the fuel for the accumulation of hurts.

We are what we speak, write, and listen to, with words having consequences for the individual and the community. Social media gives language a permanent imprint, read by children and vulnerable adults. And it is therefore not true that "words can never hurt me" as recited in a childhood mantra, for words can impact people in hurtful ways, and one never knows when those words are transformed to killing in the mind of someone who has learned those patterns in childhood or who has adopted them through the interaction with others.

Are Limbaugh's remarks a distraction or verbal abuse?

[caption id="attachment_14374" align="alignleft" width="240"] Rush Limbaugh[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Recent remarks made by Rush Limbaugh raise questions about the type of language represented in the media that magnifies, expresses, or reflects the language that is accepted by a culture.

In responding to a female activist with reference to birth control and its inclusion in healthcare legislation, Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a femme Nazi, a word he himself coined some years ago about female proponents of equality. Christian Science Monitor asks the question, "Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far?"

Raising this question allows examination of what is acceptable in public speech, specifically from the media in response to issues. While there are some folks who consider Rush Limbaugh more of an entertainer than a journalist, the radio host and provocateur offers snippets of news along with his comments about recent events and is listened to by millions of individuals who see Limbaugh as a source of information on current affairs.  

Sandra Fluke testified about women's rights to contraception. She is a Georgetown University law student. Republican lawmakers have produced an all-male panel to refute inclusion of contraception as a free benefit under the new Healthcare bill. The Democrats addressed their concerns by selecting Fluke as a woman articulate in women's rights.

Following her testimony, Limbaugh addressed the issue of contraception and how he sees it as a way for women to receive welfare and a service without paying for it in order to get as much sex as they want. It is what he said further that has raised controversy and questions about what is appropriate speech in the media.

After labeling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute", Limbaugh went on to say “If we are going to have to pay for this then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier this week. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

So what is verbal abuse? Experts tell us there are specific characteristics to it. Some of these are the following:   First it is said to be hurtful and directed towards demeaning an individual. The abuse can be subtle or direct, with name-calling and angry outbursts. It is often used as a means of control. In addition it is often unpredictable and shocking. Experts further tell us there is often no closure from the abuse, and the issues that provoked it can remain unresolved. The abuser is focused primarily on the anger and control.

In reviewing what occurred concerning Rush Limbaugh's verbal attack specifically on Sandra Fluke and the issue of contraception and healthcare legislation, Christian science Monitor reflects on the fact that the controversial radio host will likely not back down, then quotes a key Republican in response to concerns about verbal abuse as this“It doesn’t help,” said Carly Fiorina, National Republican Senatorial Committee vice chairman,  on "CBS This Morning." “That language is insulting, in my opinion. It’s incendiary and most of all, it’s a distraction.”

That type of distraction experts tell us is more than a distraction and an example instead of control and manipulation. The excuse that the victim deserved it is insufficient according to the same experts and a reflection of the misunderstanding about verbal abuse and how hurtful it can be when it is used by a public figure such as Limbaugh.  It tortures political and social debate, according to Michael Brenner, and in doing so widens the chasm of understanding that is required to govern, and to vote, with knowledge and responsibility.

Bullying: the cycle of abuse found in birds and humans

[caption id="attachment_9741" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Bullying - wikimedia commons"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Larry ran home from school with six boys chasing, egged on by one of the louder, more aggressive of the boys, the leader and the bully whose popularity attracts power, as happens not just in schoolyards but in life and politics, a tactic that is used to do great harm to individuals and communities.

A new science study on birds reveals that not just humans grow up to be bullies if they have been victims themselves. The finding that abused Nazca bird babies become victimizers later on  verifies the social science research that has found the cycle of abuse in humans means the child who is bullied and abused is likely to victimize his/her own children.

The bully is often an anxious, fearful individual whose poor self concept is elevated by exerting control over others. The bully boy finds chasing Larry a way to secure a following, to ensure he has a base to make pronouncements after all. The crowd of children he attracts finds being part of the bully’s gang keeps any of them from becoming a target, as the “in group” members would thought of as safe.

People give power to bullies because of their own fears. They see how the bully exercises power and worry they may be next. The bully’s target particularly lives in fear because he or she never knows when and how pain will be delivered.

While many people think of bullies only at work and at school, these individuals are everywhere, using a variety of mechanisms to control. For some, a terrible silence added to the look of contempt can hurt every bit as words hurled in high decibels across a playground. Barbara Coloroso tells us in “The Bully, the Bullied and the Bystander, “Bullying is not about anger . It is not a conflict to be resolved, it’s about contempt –a powerful feeling of dislike toward someone considered to be worthless, inferior or undeserving of respect. Contempt comes with three apparent psychological advantages that allow kids to harm others without feeling empathy, compassion, or shame. These are: a sense of entitlement, that they have the right to hurt or control others; an intolerance towards difference; and a freedom to exclude, bar, isolate, and segregate others.”

Multiplied by many, bullies can become a group, a powerful group with members attracted to the controlled sureness of the leaders, the aggressive speech, and the resolve to be one of the powerful in association with the bully to avoid becoming a target. This can help form extreme political parties or individuals who attract followers who act out what some interpret as rage, sometimes in violent ways.

The bully is therefore a Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, or the neighbor, and to end the behavior, experts tell us, adults in authority and peers need to get involved. In other words, it takes a village to end bullying, so that people become aware of its harm to communities and to themselves.

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