Shakespeare and Elvis are Alive and Well!

Shakespeare and Elvis are Alive and Well!
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen

Many adults taught me as a child that name calling was a classless as well as ignorant way to try and win an argument. They said that you must debate people with the art of disagreeing agreeably. Respecting another’s opinion doesn’t make your argument weak but name calling definitely makes both you and your argument small. I took this training to heart and both when still a child and now as an adult I agree to disagree and disagree agreeably. I also remember adults making the comment that politics was a “dirty” sometimes they would say “filthy business”. I wondered what they meant but that was when I still was naïve enough to think that all adults followed the same rules of decorum and respect that I was taught to follow. The current political rhetoric certainly supports the negative cynical view that most people have about politics.
Whether from the Democrats, Republicans, news media or private citizens the pejoratives, name-calling and disrespectful taunting has been increasing in both bold disregard for decorum and outlandish analogy with the intent to smear and dishonor the other’s argument and is small minded. Calling the President a liar in the middle of his speech on the House floor is tactless and rude to say the least. Calling the President a communist or calling the angry town hall citizens un-American is muting and discrediting your argument and not gaining one anything except a discounting roll of one’s eyes. Decrying all voices in opposition to the President’s policies as racists is not only offensive to those to whom it’s aimed but shows an arrogant ignorance of opposing views and demonizes discontent. “We can’t go on together with suspicions and lies.”
Our forefathers in their wisdom understood that the majority opinion while respected wasn’t always necessarily correct or considered omnipotent. It carefully considered the rights of the minority and understood that sometimes the minority opinion was the better as well as wanting to ensure that majority did not alienate the minority to then foment civil unrest. It’s hard to see a true majority and or a true minority in today’s political tug of words because the country seems as equally politically divided between Red States and Blue States, Democrats and Republicans. You would therefore think that because neither political side could claim to have the majority opinion that there would be more reason to sit down at the non-partisan table and reasonably debate the issues and come to compromised agreements for the benefit of all or at the very least do nothing until the political tide changed to a clear majority leaning opinion. I do not think our forefathers envisioned an equally divided congress and populace being dismissive of each other. They probably assumed that that would be the perfect set of conditions for reasonable compromise by both sides. Instead, the political rhetoric has become the Hatfield’s versus the McCoy’s or the house of Montague versus the house of Capulet. The sword pens and the lashing tongues are the prelude throughout history for the worst to follow. Romeo where for art thou? Juliet where for art thou? Love and respect where for art thou? Alas poor political civility you are dying. We be or not be civil and respectful while in disagreement. That is the over arching question.