“Is our political speech really more bitter and poisonous than it's ever been?”

Robert F. Kennedy (photo courtesy of Milkaddict.com)

Tim Rutten at the LA Times credits the Internet with contributing to and amplifying the vitriol in American politics. I suggested as much in a recent post in which I mentioned the obligatory sarcasm and cynicism that dominates the blogosphere, especially in anonymously posted diatribes. The uglier your attacks on those with whom you disagree, the more page views you’re likely to garner, and this is equally true for Left and Right-wing bloggers.

Rutten argues that political speech today does not reflect Bobby Kennedy’s America, due primarily to the technology that powers the new media. Rutten writes:

 

Is our political speech really more bitter and poisonous than it's ever been?

No, though it's certainly more debased and lacerating than it was just a few short years ago. We've been through eras of bitterly expressed politics more often than we'd probably care to admit. The Federalists and anti-Federalists bickered ferociously. Contention over the Bank of the United States during the Jacksonian era was fierce. The political rhetoric leading up to the Civil War was murderous. Franklin Roosevelt's policies were the target of vile opposition. And during the McCarthy period, intolerance abounded.

If there's a major difference between these other periods in which political expression was an ugly business and ours, it probably lies in the technology of speech. We live in an era saturated with communication of all sorts, and this has both radically democratized political speech and opinion and deprived it of any restraint or standard of responsibility.

Because we're literally bathed in politicized speech, which is different than political speech, when rhetoric turns ugly, it seems as if it is all around us because in some sense it is. In former eras we were buffered by constraints of time and distance, which new media have erased.

The Internet has been a great enabler of incivility, not only because it so easily allows the anonymous or pseudonymous expression of the most violent or hurtful opinions but because it reinforces the illusion of a virtual world in which there is nothing but speech. Anyone with a laptop or a smart phone can engage in endless wrangling with the political figures they know only as broadcast images flickering across the video screen. In such an environment, there is no need for the restraint or civility that is an essential part of dealing with flesh-and-blood people or the actual consequences of a real world.

Read more:

Tabloid Journalism At Its Finest

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader today, Hillary Clinton commented that people had been trying to push her out of the Democratic race since Iowa. When asked why, she replied that she didn’t know. She mentioned that Bill Clinton had not wrapped up his campaign in 1992 until the middle of June and that Robert Kennedy was still on the trail in June at the time of his assassination.

In good tabloid style, the media immediately seized on Clinton’s reference to Bobby Kennedy’s death to twist and distort a comment intended only to emphasize that the duration of the 2008 Democratic primary has not been unprecedented.

In response to the media’s attempted smears, Clinton’s campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee said:

“She {Clinton} was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate.

Later on, speaking on her own behalf, Clinton elaborated:

"Earlier today I was discussing the democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June that's a historic fact. The Kennedy's have been much on my mind for the last days because of Senator Kennedy."

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - particularly for that family - was in any way offensive," Clinton continued. "I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York. And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

Her statement makes sense; the Clintons’ long-time friendship with the Kennedy family has remained strong despite Ted Kennedy’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama.

But the eagerness displayed by the media to seize on yet another opportunity to demonize Hillary Clinton is inexplicable. Perhaps someday we’ll know why the better-qualified candidate in this race was continuously vilified while the least qualified candidate was eagerly swept along to his coronation.

Watch Clinton’s interview with the Argus Leader here.