Vitriol vs. Tact

"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds." President Barack H. Obama

I wonder if we even remember how to do that...talk with each other in a way that heals rather than wounds. Have we forgotten how to disagree tactfully? Is it possible to refute a person's assertion or allegation without rebuffing the person?

It could take some doing. We Americans seem to have taken our freedom of speech to heart to the point that we've lost a lot of our manners. We've evolved from a time when I was young (all those many decades ago) and married couples could not even be shown standing in a master bedroom equipped with a double bed (heaven forbid anyone be confronted with even the hint that a couple did that,) to a time when some of us freely season our daily conversations with gustily dropped F-bombs, mixed company and children be damned.

Throw in a little sarcasm, a pinch of contempt, a dash of disdain and a handful of hatred; stir in with the F-bomb, heat and Voilà! We have vitriol.

The problem with vitriol, if it isn't completely apparent, is its limited usefulness. It has only two distinct purposes, as far as I can tell:

1) To attack another person or group with the purpose of diminishing the target's feelings and/or sense of worth, or

2) To whip up a group of followers (the proverbial choir) into a rabid frenzy.

The only way I can think of to get this country back to actually communicating is to revive a linguistic tool that seems to have gone out of fashion: tact.

Tact is most useful when trying to convert, win over, convince, persuade, teach and yes, lead. If I want to get a person to listen to my point of view, I can't start off by telling her that her baby is ugly. I cannot attack his mother's virtue and expect him to listen to the rest of what I have to say (if I can still speak after he has separated me from my teeth!)

In the same vein, telling people who endorse the positions taken by the Tea Party that they are
selfish, racist, morons who don't even have enough sense to know they are acting against their own best interests will not cause them to change teams. Instead, we must find the right words and the right tone to get those Americans to listen to us.


The bad news, for me anyway, is we have to be willing to listen in return. I know that's not easy because I get so doggone agitated when people on the other side of my beliefs start to proselytize. But how else will we ever be able to discover whatever common ground we have? I've got to learn to get past it.

The true spirit of the quote from either Voltaire or Ewelyn Beatrice Hall, depending whom you believe -- I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -- will have to take hold of each of us if we are ever to move the needle on our political discourse.

Where do we start? How about with each other? Even within a group of people who share a basic ideology, whether it's conservative or liberal, we sometimes encounter people who resort to vitriol if we are not in lock-step with their version of the principle. I am socially as far left as one can get, I think, but fiscally I move closer to the center. When I write a statement that reflects that position, I am just as apt to be told my idea is stupid or ridiculous or worse by a fellow lefty as I am by a Republican!

We can do better than this. If we are going to save our history from being entitled The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, we'd better take a page from the late Michael Jackson and start with the man and woman in the mirror.