Public Debate

            I teach debate. Hanging in my classroom is a poster that reads, “Think rationally. Articulate clearly. Engage kindly.” One of the primary skillsets we work on is the ability to engage in civil discourse. After all, I choose the debate topics hoping to arouse students’ passions. Sometimes, thankfully rarely, students let their passions overwhelm them and they fail to “engage kindly.” It’s understandable. After all, they are teenagers and given to extremes. But that is part of why I teach debate. I want my students to learn how to conduct themselves appropriately when taking part in a debate; whether it is organized or an impromptu discussion in the hallway. So, I find recent actions by leaders quite frustrating.

            It is one thing to disagree with someone. It’s acceptable to point out flaws in reasoning, logic, or facts; however, civil discourse does not include personal attack or character defamation. In truth, when anyone, self-included, descends into personal insult they erode the cogency of their argument. Personal attacks, no matter the height of the office, have no place in our national discourse on policy. Our form of government depends upon the clear and unfettered exchange of ideas through debate. We believe that good policy emerges from vigorous, yet civil, debate. We believe in this so strongly that we included the following ideas in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights; freedom of speech, press, assembly, and to seek redress of grievances. These rights, and others secure our ability to criticize and protest actions of our government.

            When governmental leaders respond to criticism of policy by encouraging holders of dissenting opinions to leave the country, they’re missing the point of our form of government. I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s, and remember the saying, “America, Love it or Leave it,” and thought we’d moved beyond that simplistic vision of our nation. It is not unpatriotic to want to improve our nation. While we do get many things correct and enjoy an enviable standard of living, we still have a variety of issues to work on. Labeling those that seek redress from the government as malcontents and encouraging their departure demeans our constitution and all those who’ve sacrificed to preserve its ideals. Such language coming from elected officials, sworn to protect the constitution, dismays me.

            I feel I must speak out against this erosion of our civil institutions. We must work to reinvigorate the ideas laid out in our foundational documents, holding leaders accountable for the things that they say. It is not useful to shrug and say, “They all do it.” They do not all do it and such a cavalier attitude toward such speech only emboldens those who employ such repugnant tactics. Should we continue to shirk our responsibilities in this arena we will pay a significant cultural price. A politician may espouse policy positions we deem important; but, if they engage in such reckless speech, we should withdraw our support unless they change. The damage their behavior does to the fabric of our nation outweighs any transient policy gains. Additionally, it makes my job as a teacher of debate much harder.

            The example of leaders carries great weight with my students. It is one thing for me to stand up and tell them something, but when they see respected national leaders employing such intellectually dishonest strategies, they discount what I say. They see a holder of high office engaging in such attack speech and assume that it must be acceptable. Sadly, our political history is replete with those who used speech as a weapon; yet, we aspire to a higher standard. Look at those leaders which have inspired our nation to greatness, and you will find men and women who focused on ideas rarely, if ever, savaging an opponent’s character. We must speak truth to power, demanding that they elevate public discourse. Not only do they shape policy, but they also help set the standard for enlightened debate in our nation. My support of a boorish, bullying, leader tells my students that I accept their behaviors as normal. This far outweighs any transient policy considerations. Of course, policy matters; but how we treat each other matters more. Calling on those that disagree with us to leave is the action of a despot and tyrant. Instead, leaders ought to engage in the messy work of figuring out what we can do to solve seemingly intractable problems. If we work together, without name-calling and innuendo, we will find the solutions to problems. That is the example I wish to hold up to my debate students. I want them to pick future leaders that handle public office and responsibility appropriately. Consequently, I cannot and will not lift up those who engage in sophomoric diatribe as worthy of emulation. Their words and their actions reveal their true nature and character and have no place in reasoned debate, civil discourse, or a civilized nation.