Asked during an online chat with readers of the Lawrence Journal-World about the apparent lack of courtesy among those who toil at the Statehouse, Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, said he detects a “strident tone in public discourse” generally these days “that is not helpful in building consensus or reaching compromise.” He added: “We see a variety of factors that drive impatience. For example, the speed and informality of the Internet somehow encourage people to say things in e-mail and chat rooms that they would never say person-to-person in polite society.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
21 Comments
I for one am even more outspoken in person than I am online and via e-mail. lol
V.L.R.B!!
Rhonda, your timing is off on this one. Looks like everybody on the blog is getting along pretty good lately.
I’m Back! Thanks to XXX for fixing my ‘puter. I was having withdrawal. The guy is a wiz!
We get along. :)
With the exception of the occasional troll, but that is expected in all blogs and chat rooms.
It’s all good.
Senator Schmidt may want to get his panties out of their currently wadded-up condition. Despite the Republican effort to romanticize the past and to shame everyone into lockstep and groupthink, American political discourse has ALWAYS been fractious and full of rancor. It has also been violent.
**********************************
May 22, 1856The Caning of Senator Charles SumnerOn May 22, 1856, the “world’s greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate’s entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator.” Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, Slavery.”
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.***********************************
I will, of course, insist on an absolute distinction between discourse and fisticuffs. But Sumner sure knew how to hurt a guy with words, didn’t he?
Good observation, CF. Other noteworthy examples abound: Burr shooting Hamilton dead in a duel, Jefferson cutting off his close personal friendship with Adams and letting him twist in the wind politically, The Civil Effing War, Reconstruction in which federal officials were routinely shot, the rise of Jim Crow laws and lynchings, the assassination of Mackinley and the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, Theodore Rooseveldt splitting off from the Republicans and running on a third party ticket, McCarthy-ism, Reagan’s secret negotiations with the Ayatollah to hold the hostages until AFTER the 1980 elections to help defeat Carter (successful), H.W. Bush’s sliming of Dukkais with the “Willie Horton” ad, the impeachment of Clinton over a sexual peccadillo, and the sliming of John Kerry’s heroic war decorations.
Don’t like “division”?
Then don’t get into politics. It’s all about division. If Democrats are the same as Republicans, then there’s no point in ever voting . . .
Gee Lib, do ya think that is why voting percentages are so bad? No DISTINCTION between the candidates?
I know the voting percentages were better in the last two elections, but generally, people dont vote as often as they should.
Derek “ride the fence” Schmidt is one of the guys likely to say this:
“Some of my friends are for this bill and some of my friends are against this bill. As for me, I’ll vote with my friends.”
He will be governor someday. He has all the do-nothing qualifications. He will continue to do nothing…all the way to Cedar Crest.
Heh, yup, KFG. And the “winner take all” electoral college system doesn’t help either.
Why bother to vote for the Gore or Kerry in Kansas? The Republican only needs ONE more vote for ALL six EC votes to go Republican.
Since Kansas is a given for the Repukes, it boils the real contest down to just a couple of “battleground” states like Ohio and Florida . . .
ex and PoliticsEver wonder about James Carville and Mary Matalin? Two politically opposite people, strange bedfellows, making a marriage work. Perhaps is the secret is the make-up sex. Or perhaps they leave politics at the door of their home. Or maybe they realize that partisan differences are not as important as the more fundamental things that they have in common.
If that is true, it would be nice if they could teach that to others. It seems a lot of folks have lost that ability. You know – human beings first, then being an American, and political affiliation last. Putting our priorities in that order might make a lot of our problems disappear.
Are you in a inter-political “mixed marriage”? Share your secrets with us.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/sex-and-politics.html
Ohhps, missed an “S” at the beginning of that post – maybe a Freudian slip, lol
Heh, both Mary M. and James Carville seem pretty strange to me.
Neither one of them are role models I’d like to see emulated . . .
LOL, maybe that missing “s” is significant. Maybe good sex trumps political discord.
I am not gonna start sleeping with republicans just to keep the peace! It’s not like in my crowd, I have many republicans to choose from…
Perhaps Schmidt should have a talk with Doug Mays about his obscenities on the Statehouse floor. Also with his fellow Republicans for their cheers at that obscenity.
My husband and I are opposite on a lot of things, ESPECIALLY politics. I think the secret to making the relationship work is that we’ve always had lively dinner conversations. If we argue politics all the time, it leaves no energy to fight about the things that really matter in life.
When the majority decides what will happen, it’s good for those in the majority.
The more powerful and intrusive the government, the more important it is to be in the majority.
If government was less powerful, if we looked to markets rather than politicians and bureaucrats to provide for us, each person could have more of what they want, instead of what the majority decides they should have.
KCL, surely you are not speaking of the tyranny of the majority? Or as Nathan so wisely said “just because people vote for something doesnt make it right!”
PL.”Neither one of them are role models I’d like to see emulated . . .”Why not, because of their politics or because they work so well together? They both have found their respective niches in life and do them well. While I don’t always agree with their politics, I respect them for doing what they do to the best of their ability. And, they stay together; something “ordinary” people only do roughly 50% of the time.
It seems to me they can put politics aside and have a routine life. Maybe this country would be better served if the fanatics on both sides were able to do the same thing.
If you watch Jon Stewarts exchange with crossfire, http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831I think you will (I hope) understand what he is trying to get across, but which the crossfire hosts have no clue. What he is saying is how political discourse in this country should be handled. If it were, we would be less polarized, and more willing to discuss instead of cuss, and more people would get along. As it is, with the fanatics on both sides fanning flames, the only thing that can grow out of it is hatred and partisanship.
Of course they would never say the things face to face than on the web, simply because they can rant irresponsibly here without being culpable for anything they say. If I met half these people that insult me on this blog they wouldn’t dare talk the shit they normally would here.
…and crux makes the case for why people use screen names. Violence is the last refuge of small minds.
Ks,Ah! my favorite rabid woman! You fail to understand that I never have threatened anyone with violence here. Attacking the person instead of the argument is the second to last bastion of a small mind, champ. :)
Uh CruX? You were looking pretty rabid last night yourself. Ya know posting to 20 or so threads “non issue” or “who cares” And when I expressed a little concern for ya’ You told me to “not get my panties in a wad”
Vitriolic undying political hate? Yup. The right started it. Way before Monicagate the right hated Clinton because he beat the sucessor to their almighty god Reagan. (Democrat who sold out for money)
And then there was 2000. Gore wins the popular vote, and only the direct intervention of the United States Supreme Court (reversing the Florida Supreme Court…..so much for local government conserative style)gets bush in.
Ahhh but that was not enough. bush and the right could not be concilliatory! bush himself, in the midst of the controversy said ” A president is president of all the people” Translation : It’s mine all mine and if you don’t like it? NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAHHHHH NYAHHHHHHHHHHH!
SO the bushies and the right made this division. And I for one EMBRACE IT.
As a former Republican, it’s been a very long time since I met someone proudly GOP that wasn’t either willfully stupid or just flat self absorbed and motivated.
Oh and the Carville Maitlin thing? Carville is no liberal. It’s just his job! His hot blood is all show. Otherwise he could not lie down with the cold blooded reptile (at least she is honest about it) that is Maitlin.