Responding to its 15 minutes of fame following President Barack Obama's (D) quick appearance in the wake of the attempted assassination of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D) which injured her and others while killing six, the University of Arizona is establishing. . .
an institute to promote compromise among opposing political parties and views, the organization's director said on Sunday.
And who else should be chairing this Civility Institute, as the New York Times labels it,but Mr. Civility himself, former President Bill ("it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") Clinton (D). His co chair of the formally named National Institute for Civil Discourse will be former President George H.R. Bush (R) whose son, President George W. Bush (R) was treated so uncivilly during his terms of office that the founders of this institute for civility never even noticed it.
And what is the focus of this Civility Institute? Perhaps an insistence on truth following a horrific event and not jumping to conclusions? Or maybe civil methods to remove someone from society, such as the very disturbed alleged shooter, before s/he harms someone? Or maybe a stress on the necessity of saying nothing until all the facts are known?
Why no. Continuing the false liberal narrative that the shootings were caused by conservative--read Tea Party--speech that in of itself was hateful, the new head of the institute, Dr. Brint Milward, conveniently the head of the University of Arizona's School of Government and Public Policy stated
the institute would focus on political disagreements "from the grass roots all the way to the top.""In a great democracy, it's important for people to hold fast to principles, but at the same time to understand where they might be able to compromise," he said.
The idea for the institute, he said, grew out of the national conversation that began in January after the shootings in Tucson that killed six people and injured 13 others, including Ms. Giffords, a Democrat who represented the Tucson area in Congress. Politicians and pundits raised questions and criticisms about the nation's political discourse, with many calling for calmer rhetoric while pointing out commentary they considered incendiary.
(snip)
Mr. DuVal, who was a friend of Ms. Giffords's and was a co-chairman of her finance committee, said he hoped the institute would be one way the nation could work toward such a goal. One of the first steps, he said, would be to attempt defining "best practices and corrosive practices."
"How do we nurture robustness on one hand and not in any way chill speech, and keep it in bounds that are not destructive to democracy?" he said. "Will it change the nature of dialogue? That will be a tall order."
For starters, stopping the hate speech by the union protesters in Madison, Wisconsin, obscenely comparing themselves to the victims of the Nazis and of Communism, should not be that tall an order for the National Institute for Civil Discourse. But somehow I don't think this Institute will deal with that.
And I'm being civil.
Share