Political discourse often reverts to childish rhetoric

The most effective way for a person to make a difference in government has always been to take on the role of an elected or public official

Having the appetite for holding public office isn’t something a lot of people want to do, so the next best way to have a positive effect on the process can simply be contributing to the conversation. This means not necessarily being the loudest voice in the room, but by promoting respectable, informed, and productive public discourse. All too many times, though, it results in the opposite, resembling more of an argument between children than an actual discussion that can bring us closer to positive results.

You remember when you were a kid or maybe you’ve witnessed your own kids try to win a petty argument, right? They might go back and forth for a short period of time, and then one side just decides they don’t want to try anymore so they throw out a line like “You’re stupid” or “You’re dumb.” The other side goes on to react with “No, you’re stupid, you’re dumb.” No matter what the argument was previously, it’s lost all credibility at this point.

When I think of political discourse in this country, frequently that same argument between children is what I’m reminded of. Legitimate discussion of the issues all too often evaporates because one side or the other decides to take the dive into name calling, stereotyping, or simply polarize the issue. It transcends Washington D.C. and is present anywhere from your local newspaper to the coffee shop to the workplace.

While kids can be excused for this type of behavior for just being kids, there’s a term for when adults act the same way in regards to their political interactions. Whether intentional or not, it goes by the name of demagoguery, a word you may have never heard of before that is just as loaded in meaning as it is in syllables. It’s the “stupid” and “dumb” of adult American politics.

It’s important to distinguish the difference between an information based talking point and an emotionally driven act of demagoguery, which can be broadly described as the use of impassioned, crude, or agitating appeals to prejudices of the public. That is, rational and intelligent reasoning is not always at its core. Its vocabulary is often a hint that you’ve wandered off the path of productive discourse. Terms like Satan, nazi, communist, marxist, welfare queen, fair share, and the war on (insert cause) seem to be a few used to turn attention away from a mature debate.

Republicans sometimes express the idea that President Barack Obama is a socialist. In return, some Democrats have accused Republicans of being racist. Both are forms of demagoguery, whose purpose is to appeal towards a certain audience in order to support a cause. The extent of the statement’s accuracy is not important. Once it is said, its purpose of rousing a sense of emotion in people has been served.

In a democratic and free society like the one we enjoy here in the United States, demagoguery is all within the scope of free speech, as it should be. It’s seen on a daily basis from our country’s top leaders all the way down to average citizens. The responsibilities we generally associate with free speech are perhaps the most intangible and unenforceable of all, so they can only be promoted by example, which should be on display first and foremost from our elected officials, who more often than not choose to be intellectually lazy, using insults instead of engaging in policy discussions.

On the other hand, we can’t really expect others to discuss the issues in a sane and logical way unless we do so ourselves. Only then will results fueled by logic and reason replace those of emotion and passion. Good government and the discourse surrounding it isn’t supposed to be exciting; it was never meant to be compacted into 30 second sound bites, split-screen television interviews, or Hollywood movies. It was meant to be approached more like long-term relationships between people, because in the end that’s all good government is: quality interactions between groups of people over time. So ask yourself, how do we achieve the best solutions to just some of the following questions facing our local, state, and federal governments?

What is the best balance between Platte County’s park tax and making sure law enforcement and road needs are also maintained? How can Missouri’s education formula be fully funded again to ensure local school boards don’t have to levy higher property taxes? Are there any bipartisan solutions Congress can adopt to address both our short-term economic and long-term debt problems?

All are legitimate questions that have so far been met with little serious debate. We may not be debating on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives or even at the County Courthouse, but a lot of those discussions stem directly from how we talk about them around our own kitchen tables with family and friends. The difference between it turning into actual policy or just another name-calling, shouting match really depends on the discussion we have first.