Throughout the course of American history, political discourse has always brought out the most impassioned opinions and headlines. Indeed, the fierce conviction of leaders is what operates America’s political machine. Yet, the increasing feelings of exasperation and frustration that recent Presidential debates and political discussions beget are seemingly shared by many Americans – much more frequently than before. Many would agree with the claim that the amount of respect and professionalism in the past century proves a stark contrast to contemporary politics.
Politicians represent their constituents. Yet, are they the best representatives of American politeness? When our current leaders engage in name-calling and mud-slinging, it only adds to political polarization, which in turn leads to the inability to see where others come from. Leaders can and must set a good example for their constituents.
During the 2008 Presidential Election between future President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, ideological preferences and policy proposals differed significantly. At the time, the two leaders clashed openly and fiercely on national television on issues ranging from foreign policy to the environment to healthcare. However, McCain notably defended Obama during a conversation with a voter who expressed her concern at an Obama presidency. McCain said that although the two candidates differed on issues, Obama was still a respectable person whose leadership was not to be feared. Over the years, Obama reciprocated the chivalry, notably speaking at McCain’s funeral. No matter one’s political preference, this example of mutual respect should be emulated.
It is important to remember that, for the most part, Americans hope to achieve a better country and opportunity – they just disagree on how to get there. This ties into one of the First Amendment’s primary purposes: protecting speech you disagree with, and not just that which you agree with. A different political opinion serves as a form of checks and balances on other points of view. It is exactly this clashing of ideals which has created a functional government, free from the tyranny of the majority. An important caveat to the First Amendment is that either end of the extremes is going too far. On one end, not everything is “free speech,” such as threats against others. While limitations to free speech do exist, infractions do as well. Silencing others by creating numerous rules under the guise of “respectfulness” is also an extreme position.
Free speech was, is, and always will be a cornerstone of our democracy. It must be. The First Amendment enables civil and respectful discourse, which leads to productive conversations. Democracy will fail when civil conversations stop.
Young children are taught to treat others with kindness and respect, and to follow the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Whether it is something as simple as shaking hands with the opposing team after a soccer match, holding the door open for an elder, or waiting your turn to speak in a conversation, these fundamental principles are repeatedly emphasized throughout childhood. Politicians and civically-involved citizens alike must remember that at the end of the day, we are all Americans – a combination of Democrat, Republican, Independent, and everything in between.
Staying respectful and considerate of others’ beliefs, knowing that they, too, likely wish to improve the lives of those around them, will help reduce the increasingly present resentment. Coming to the table without personal attacks in mind, but rather with a firm understanding or attempt of understanding different positions can help promote cohesion within the United States.