Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
"Were you watching when President Trump was booed after being introduced at Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park," asks Steven Mintz.
How politicians need to combat ‘cancel culture’ to recalibrate the civic tone
Mintz is the author of "Beyond Happiness and Meaning: Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior" and a former dean of the College of Business and Public Administration at Cal State University in San Bernardino.
Were you watching when President Trump was booed after being introduced at Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park? Chants of "lock him up" made me think about the decline of civility in society, which the president contributes to on Twitter almost daily.
Trump was a victim of his own disrespectful behavior, having prompted his audiences to chant "lock her up" during his campaign against Hillary Clinton. The point is uncivil behavior begets more uncivil behavior and before you know it, all of society has been infected.
Trump routinely criticizes those who disagree with him or say anything that portrays him in an unflattering way. He uses his bully pulpit to bully others rather than to bring our divided country together and promote civic discourse.
Political dialogue is the main cause of the lack of civic discourse in the public arena. Partisanship has replaced objective debate. It's fueled by each political party working to make the other look as bad as possible. It's an "us against them" mentality and the public loses in the end. Nothing of substance gets done because politicians are so busy digging up dirt on their opponents and playing to their political base.
Social media is the main cause of the lack of civility in society. The temptation to type a few words to vent at someone who said or did something objectionable is all too tempting for many. The tirade's recipient wants revenge and so replies without any thought of the consequences. These exchanges go viral and bad behavior is normalized. What's needed to restore civil discourse is to learn how to disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
A lot has been written recently about our "cancel culture," where someone says or does something that's captured online and then gets denounced online by those who object. The goal is to cut the initial messenger off from influence. The guilty party is shunned from society. Being cancelled can cost friends, coworkers, a job or even a career.
Cancel culture and what to do about it is a multi-dimensional problem. There are some who should be canceled such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and others who have said and done disgraceful things. The ever-increasing pictures of politicians, entertainers and others depicted in blackface is another example. Appearing in blackface or any other cultural insensitivity is wrong at any age. Just because someone did it when they were younger and immature doesn't excuse it. It shows poor judgment, a lack of empathy and gross insensitivity to what other people have had to endure.
I don't agree, however, that those who post offensive comments should be automatically cancelled. Such people need to be challenged on their ideas. How will we ever promote civilized discourse if we don't start talking to each other and resist the temptation to dismiss them because of their words or deeds? Let's call them out but also try to change their behavior in a productive way.
Former President Barack Obama chimed in recently about the cancel culture, saying that being judgmental about other people is not activism or helping to bring change. He likened it to casting stones. No doubt he's on to something, but we need to understand that this is one way for millennials to communicate their feelings and vent their frustration. They lead their lives on social media so it shouldn't be surprising that they turn to it to voice their disgust about someone else's words or behavior. It's a form of online activism.
We need to be more forgiving and less judgmental of others. We live in a time where
insults and accusations overwhelm honesty and integrity. We've forgotten the lesson of Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" that says we should "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." Unfortunately, all too many seek first to criticize and judge.
Nothing will change unless our leaders change, and hearing the tenor of the debate in Congress over political matters, such as whether Trump should be impeached, gives me little hope the problem will be solved anytime soon. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you come down on. In Washington, it's a "gotcha" culture that fosters tit-for-tat behavior.
This is not what the Founders had in mind. They developed fundamental principles and civic virtues as the foundation of our government, but that is crumbling under the weight of acrimonious exchanges. We've lost sight of the basic virtues that reflect universal principles of moral and ethical excellence essential to living a good life and promoting effective, representative government. Things like basic kindness, respect for others and a generosity of spirit.
Can we reverse course? I'm not optimistic, but one thing that might help is for debate moderators to ask the Democratic presidential candidates to opine on how we can bring civility back to society. No one seems to want to discuss it, which is a sign incivility has been normalized by society.
To solve a problem, much like alcoholism and drug dependency, we first have to admit there is one, and it doesn't seem that will occur anytime soon.
- Americans believe nation is headed toward another civil war - The ... ›
- In our TV reruns, an amalgam of a more civil society - The Fulcrum ›
The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn
In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.
The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.
TV stations fight FCC over political ad disclosure
Broadcasters are pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission after the agency made clear it wants broader public disclosure regarding TV political ads.
With the 2020 election less than a year away and political TV ads running more frequently, the FCC issued a lengthy order to clear up any ambiguities licensees of TV stations had regarding their responsibility to record information about ad content and sponsorship. In response, a dozen broadcasting stations sent a petition to the agency, asking it to consider a more narrow interpretation of the law.
This dispute over disclosure rules for TV ads comes at a time when digital ads are subject to little regulation. Efforts to apply the same rules for TV, radio and print advertising across the internet have been stymied by Congress's partisanship and the Federal Election Commission being effectively out of commission.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
"I also do this work because, as a white woman, I know that the exclusion of entire communities from our democracy was (and is still) led by my people and, often, in my name," says Laura Williamson of Demos.
Meet the reformer: Laura Williamson, sounding a progressive Carolina call
Laura Williamson says her career was shaped by growing up in North Carolina, which she describes as being historically at the center of the best and worst of American democracy. She spent seven years working with young people at progressive groups and got a master's in public affairs at Princeton before joining Demos in the summer of 2018. The think tank aims to combat "threats to democracy, racial equity and economic inclusion" and as a senior policy analyst she's focused on voter registration, voting rights, money in politics and civic participation. Her answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.
What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?
Abolishing all disenfranchisement schemes and achieving an inclusive, multiracial democracy.
Describe your very first civic engagement.
Testifying at the North Carolina General Assembly against cuts to funding for vocational education. The woodworking classes I took throughout high school were among the most formative of my public school education, so as a high school senior I advocated for their continued funding to lawmakers in Raleigh.
What was your biggest professional triumph?
It's actually a triumph-in-progress. At Demos, we are privileged to work with powerful grassroots leaders redefining democracy and pushing the reform conversation across the country. Alongside these Inclusive Democracy Project leaders we are dreaming and scheming about what it would take to build a truly inclusive democracy — without limiting ourselves by what's perceived as politically feasible or reasonable — and to chart a radical reform agenda that meets the challenge. Our agenda is in progress and, like all real victories, is benefitting from the efforts of many smart and talented people. Stay tuned, it'll be ready for public consumption soon!
And your most disappointing setback?
They have always come after I've not listened well enough, have brought too much ego and taken things too personally, or not followed my gut about when a process or decision felt off.
How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?
I'm from North Carolina, where we pioneered multiracial, pro-justice fusion politics during Reconstruction, civil disobedience during the civil rights movement and franchise-expanding voting reforms since the 1990s. More recently, we have also been home to the vanguard of voter suppression and other democracy stifling tactics since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. I stand on the shoulders of giants and against the abdication of our identity as democracy leaders. I also do this work because, as a white woman, I know the exclusion of entire communities from our democracy was — and is still — led by my people and, often, in my name. I work every day to undo that legacy and ongoing reality.
What's the best advice you've ever been given?
Learn to simultaneously practice patience and show up with urgency in all the work I do.
Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.
Impeaches and Cream
West Wing or Veep?
West Wing — for the sometimes-too-earnest belief that government can be a force for good, not the centrist politics!
What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?
Turn on do not disturb.
What is your deepest, darkest secret?
I'm deeply terrified by karaoke.
On TV, political ads are regulated – but online, anything goes
Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.
With the 2020 election less than a year away, Facebook is under fire from presidential candidates, lawmakers, civil rights groups and even its own employees to provide more transparency on political ads and potentially stop running them altogether.
Meanwhile, Twitter has announced that it will not allow any political ads on its platform.
Modern-day online ads use sophisticated tools to promote political agendas with a high degree of specificity.
I have closely studied how information propagates through social channels and its impact on political messaging and advertising.
Looking back at the history of mass media and political ads in the national narrative, I think it's important to focus on how TV advertising, which is monitored by the Federal Communications Commission, differs fundamentally with the world of social media.
