A S THE SMOKE was settling
Can't we all get along?
It was a good question, despite the mocking tone in which people tend to use it today. The derision one hears associated with King's plaintive query implies a certain sense of surrender in the omnipresent battle for national cohesion--as well as silent acquiescence to the decline in cultural civility.
In essence, to mock the phrase "Can't we all get along?" is to mock the very idea of, well, us getting along. The question is: Who is right--King, or the scoffers who can't imagine respecting people with different perspectives?
I've been thinking a lot about Rodney King's question as the level of vitriol directed toward Republicans by Democratic leaders has surged in recent months.
Can't we all get along?
It goes beyond differing political prescriptions. This is a democracy; we're supposed to have differences. But when we see a party whose leading senator publicly uses words like "idiot" and "loser" to describe the president of the United States, that's not politics--that's an obsession.
When we have the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate comparing our troops to Nazis, Stalinists, and the Khmer Rouge, that's not merely unfair--it's pathological.
When the chairman of the Democratic Party says he hates Republicans and "everything they stand for," that's not just the worst way to win new supporters--it's narcissistic and self-destructive.
Can't we all get along?
Even some liberal stalwarts (including Joe Biden, hardly a shrinking violet) have begun to admit that the level of vituperation needs to be toned down--at least in the public arena. Antagonism might rouse the hard-core party faithful, but it isn't sustainable as a political foundation.
The polls bear this out. While the president's poll numbers have waned, largely based on news from Iraq, there has been no corresponding rise in support for Democrats. The reason, admit Democratic heavies James Carville and Stan Greenberg in a party memorandum, is that Democrats have brought little to the table. "Democrats have not yet defined themselves or what changes they would bring," the two note.
Inherent in that statement is the acknowledgement of political danger for a party that appears locked in permanent attack mode. Rather than ideas on how to move forward, together, it's the inability to even speak respectfully that could become the defining characteristic of the current Democratic leadership--hardly becoming
In short, nastiness is not a golden ticket, even in politics. Independent pollster John Zogby told columnist Donald Lambro recently: "There's been no advantage to the Democrats. They aren't scoring points in terms of landing any significant punches [on Bush or the Republicans] or saying anything meaningful to the American people."
In the wake of a sound electoral defeat in 2004, Democrats are undertaking a collective soul-searching--but what they need first is a sort of political niacin to get rid of all the toxins. They need to decide what kind of party they want to project in 2006, 2008, and beyond. They're wrestling with it even as you read this.
Hillary Clinton--no fool, she--is trying to position herself a bit away from the venom, at least for public consumption. The same goes for likely presidential contender Sen. Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana. Bayh, son of former Sen. Birch Bayh, has stressed the need for bipartisanship, and concedes that many Americans don't believe Democratic candidates "have the backbone" for national defense.
It is only through these sorts
In essence, collegiality isn't only the right way to go, it's the smart way.
Some Democrats don't agree with this mea culpa approach. They point to the Republican denouncements of Bill Clinton during the many scandals of that administration--Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. But there was a difference. The Republicans were not denouncing every Democrat as "evil." As bitter as the criticisms of Bill Clinton's behavior were, they were not blanket denunciations
It's not too late for Democrats to pull back from the precipice. Bayh, in particular, is a politically attractive, fiscally conservative candidate who could cause headaches for Republicans in 2008--as could our own governor, Mark Warner.
Neither of them has equated the Boy Scouts with the Hitler Youth, or the president with Hitler.
Can't we all just get along, even when we see things differently? Or will demagogy be the wailing death song of the Democratic party as it spirals off the cliff
For the sake of a strong and functional America, let's hope collegiality is invited back from exile. Verbal hand grenades are easy to lob, but the end result is unpleasant.
Different perspectives should not lead to hate.
DAVE SMALLEY is Op-Ed/Viewpoints editor for the Free Lance-Star.