When Extremism Becomes a Vice : Civility in political discourse is necessary if America is to move forward

Healthy skepticism toward government and freewheeling debate have been hallmarks of this nation’s democracy for more than two centuries now. Our freedom to speak out, to try to persuade others, has allowed this nation to flourish and has long made the United States the envy of the world. But in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton is not the only one wondering whether, in some quarters, skepticism toward government hasn’t come perilously close to advocating resistance that is both lawless and downright dangerous.

There is undoubtedly a rawness and anger to contemporary political debate that we have not heard in some time. Clinton has ample reason to speak out against what he considers a lack of civility in public life, as he did last week in Minneapolis.

Like every U.S. president before him, Clinton has been the subject of verbal attacks. Such free-flowing, irreverent debate, even angry debate, is healthy. Indeed, our national temper may flare in cycles--U.S. participation in the Vietnam War, for example, generated not just heated discourse but serious protests and even isolated acts of politically inspired violence, mostly from the left. Though he used the occasion to respond to his political critics, the President nonetheless has a point in calling on Americans to speak responsibly when they speak out.

“We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today,” Clinton said. “They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable.” Whether through talk radio, the Internet or shortwave radio, Americans angry with politics and with their government have found a voice and, in a few isolated instances, even a following. Sometimes that anger has also boiled over into violence or threats of violence. For example, in some rural areas of the West, federal agents have virtually stopped performing their duties because they have received death threats.

Such resistance to federal law is not new either. The South’s attempted secession from the Union stands as the ultimate act of defiance, and skirmishes over the use of federal land by miners and ranchers typified the unhappiness with federal authority many felt in the 19th Century.

But none of us, no matter our partisan views, are well-served by lawlessness. “Freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries,” Clinton observed, “because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility. . . . When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it.”

To do otherwise is to engage in a treacherous delusion: that the government is indeed “them,” not “us.” Carried to extremes, that is no guarantee of freedom, only anarchy.