news-record.com

OPINION

Leonard Pitts Jr.: A welcome overture for civility

Wednesday, February 3, 2010
(Updated 3:00 am)

"Come now, let us reason together ..." Isaiah 1:18

A few words about that important speech President Obama gave last week. No, not that important speech, the other one.

Granted, Obama's State of the Union address was the one parsed, sifted and winnowed by pundits for clues as to where he wishes to take the country in the days ahead. But one could argue that in its way, a less-noticed speech two days later in Baltimore tells us as much if not more about the intentions and ambitions of this president.

Not so much about specific policy and legislative initiatives. But Obama's speech before a gathering of GOP representatives and the freewheeling, unscripted Q&A that followed, spoke volumes about how he proposes to make those initiatives a reality: i.e., through civil negotiation, compromise and consensus -- things that have been scarce in the public sphere since the days of Jheri curls and power suits if not longer.

If you haven't seen the video of the session, you should. It's easily found on YouTube and on the White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov). While it takes a while to view, it is worth the investment of time; you will seldom see a more riveting political exchange. Or one more oddly hopeful.

You have to wonder, after all, what Obama thought he stood to gain. If the meeting offered Republicans a chance to refute the Democratic contention that they are a party of no ideas, it is harder to see any immediate political gain for the president, especially considering that last year's attempt to reach out to the GOP was rebuffed by them and drew mixed reviews from observers.

So no, there was not a lot of evident upside in Obama's decision to renew the effort. That being the case, one is forced to consider that maybe political gain wasn't the point. Maybe he means it. Maybe he is earnest when he says he wants to see a new model of governance.

In last week's session, Obama was energetic and effective in defending his administration from ad hominem attack ads disguised as questions. He also accepted his party's share of responsibility for the "sour" state of Washington politics. But time and again, he returned to his central theme: the need to draw back from the shrill, slash-and-burn tactics and rhetoric that reached a high mark -- or, if you prefer, a low mark -- last year. If only, he said, because such behavior makes it nearly impossible for deals to be made or compromise done. And that's the very soul of governance in a democracy.

"Many of you," said Obama, "if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America. And I would just say that we have to think about tone."

Yes, politics is politics is politics, and there is nothing inherently wrong -- indeed, there is something inherently right -- with our adversarial system. But that's not what we've had these last years. No, we've had a system of hyperpartisanship, intellectual dishonesty and reflexive ideology, of permanent argument but no real attempt at solution or persuasion.

The price of which has been high -- a nation cleaved in two, a people who no longer seem to like, trust or believe in one another. So if Obama's asking the opposition party -- and his own -- to behave as if their words and deeds have consequences is not good short-term tactics, it is still a welcome counterweight to this present era of divide-and-conquer politics.

Too many elected officials seem to think re-election is what matters most. Credit Obama for an earnest, necessary reminder:

Country matters more.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Send e-mail to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 6:55 am EST

Obama's past civil discourse has included such gems as "I won", "Sit down and shut up", "I don't want the ones who made this mess in the way while I'm cleaning it up". He lied about the Republicans not having any ideas for health care reform, their ideas didn't fit his plans. Tort reform, for instance, would reduce costs to some degree, but trial lawyers are one of his biggest contributors. Who wouldn't want to work with someone like that?

miktay

February 3, 2010 - 8:21 am EST

Dusty,

It is odd hearing you use the words "civil discourse." Have you taken a close look at your own comments over the past year. I have heard more civil discourse on school playgrounds!

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 1:02 pm EST

I must admit that I am somewhat disrespectful to Mr. Obama. That is because I have no respect for him, he has never done anything, imho, to deserve any respect from me or anyone else.

I have somewhat of an advantage of most folks around here, having been born and raised in Illinois. I learned early on that there is only one kind of Chicago politician who has any success--crooked Democrats. That's the way it has been for at least a century. The more crooked they are, the more successful they are. So I saw through Obama a lot sooner than most. People are just recently beginning to realize that I have been right about him all along, thus the startling fall we have witnessed. He is not a messiah, he's just another lying politician. He does not like this country, thus his stated desire to "totally transform" it.

I'm not saying that we're perfect, but we're a whole lot better than whichever country is in second place. We may need new faucets in the bathroom or new carpet in the den, but Obama wants to flatten us with a wrecking ball and start from scratch. He doesn't give a tinker's dam about what the people want, he has only his vision for the country, a vision that was shaped by hanging around people like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. You can follow him to Hell if you want, I will continue to speak out against him.

dcolin

February 3, 2010 - 3:50 pm EST

I bet he would tell us if he took a genius test.
I have no respect for you.

You brag about having taken the Mensa IQ test.
What Test
What Score
Who Monitored
From Internet?

Talk is cheap.

Miktey

Sawdust says he is in the top 2% of intelligence in America.
Won't say how he knows this.
Civil?
He told me to shut the F up
Called Obama a dumb SOB for saying equality in constitution ( not what Obama said).
Said College waste of tine ( teaches things that are incorrect and of no use in earning a living.).
Calls many bloggers here a Socialists/Marxists
Dropped out of college.
Said Al Gore could go pound sand.
Has no problem with torture.
Questions Obamas citizenship. ( born in a mud hole I believe he said)
Says SS, Medicare, Medicaid unconstitutional
Called the president a Muslim sympathizer ( what ever that means )
Says private industry always better than government always. ( however likes public fire departments ).

I don't know his name.

I think he is conservative right wing plant. Spreading nonsense.

His big accomplishments

Owns two Cadallics, a Dodge truck ( probably with rifle rack ) and a BMW motorcycle( a foreign product ).

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 4:24 pm EST

But he is still willing to bet a grand that he can outscore you in an IQ test.

dcolin

February 3, 2010 - 4:43 pm EST

I have already agreed why bet?
Your IQ is much higher than mine.
It is ashame you did not put that fact to good use.
I mean you protest against education.
College worthless.
A mind is precious thing to waste.

Having won strut your stuff.

What Test
What Score
Who Monitored
From the Internet

Simply tell us the truth.
If you will do that I promise ( as a good American to stop bringing it up)
What can you loose?

What Test
What Score
Who Monitored
From the internet

Your chance to get this stopped.
Why not?
Unless you are embarrassed?
But it will be over fast.

Besides I don't have a "GRAND"

Panacea

February 3, 2010 - 8:53 am EST

When and where did Obama say the thngs you accuse him of. Specifics please: dates, times places, people present.

No tort reform is an excuse. It would have a minimal impact on health care costs. What else did Repubs have?

tahoeman1971

February 3, 2010 - 9:06 am EST

"I won" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

Obama: ‘Don’t Want the Folks Who Created the Mess to Do a Lot of Talking’
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-t...

Oh and here is a good one that he said to someone in his own party.
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/04/obama-to-defazio-dont-think-were-not-k...

Yeah sounds like Obama is open to all kinds of input and ideas from everyone. Give me a break. Both speeches last week were huge on political posturing and void of substance. The man is a pathological liar (like most pols) and only cares about power.

tahoeman1971

February 3, 2010 - 9:53 am EST

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 12:49 pm EST

Thanks, tahoeman. Not that it will do any good. The remaining Obamaroids don't want to admit that their messiah is less than perfect.

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 5:33 pm EST

And here's something else Obama said, several times: that no matter what we've been told, we'd be able to keep our doctors, keep our insurance plans if we liked them. How many times did he say that--half a dozen, at least. Remember that? When questioned about it, in the get-together with Republicans that Pitts mentioned, do you remember what he said? "Somebody" snuck in a provision that would break that pledge. They snuck it in on him. Whoever it was, "somebody" or "someone" snuck it in and made a liar out of him. No mention of any attempt to find out what scoundrel would do such a thing, or to get rid of that provision, just a pledge to continue to ram it down our throats and our doctors and our insurance be damned. And you want me to show respect for that? Dream on, baby. He is a worthless piece of Chicago you-know-what, and he has this country on the road to destruction.

2fer

February 3, 2010 - 6:15 pm EST

Would it be more correct to say that no one ever sneaks into bills features that are unknown to most of those who vote on the bills, or that most bills have features sneaked into them that those who vote on them are unaware of? Would it be more correct to say that no bills contain anonymous provisions, or that most bills contain anonymous provisions? Does the president have the power to oversee the legislative process, or rather the possibility of influencing its course and approving or vetoing its result, subject to override?
If Chicago politicians of the Democratic stripe are so inadequate, why are so many of them successful? Are the people of Chicago that much more than averagely ignorant or susceptible to fraud, or are Republicans so much more inadequate or holier-than-thou that they can't attract voters? How have Republicans elected by downstate voters done by comparison once elected? Not so well, from what I read.
I would expect a true genius to show a little better understanding of the legislative and political processes. Of course, I would expect a little more human decency, too.

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 10:34 pm EST

The people of Chicago, the city proper, are typical Obama voters--leeches, living off the government, having done so for generations. Not all of them, but a larger percentage than, say, Greensboro. They're out to get what they can from the gummint, and politicians like Obama are successful because they give them what they want. In other words, they "spread the wealth around". They take from people who earn and give to people who merely desire, many of whom have never so mush as hit a lick at a snake. Organizations like ACORN also do well in Chicago, being in that same business of spreading the wealth around. That's just the way it is. If you don't believe me, go to Chicago and take a look around. One word of caution--go well armed. Any other questions?

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 10:40 pm EST

Those "unknown features" snuck into bills: We pay these people good money. I think that we pay them enough money, not counting bribes and kickbacks, that the very least they should do is to read and understand a bill before voting to inflict it on me. You may not give a tinker's dam about that sort of thing, but the way I look at it, that's what we pay them for, that's what they should do. If they haven't read it or understood it, they should say so and not vote on it. But that's just me.

Beachwalk

February 3, 2010 - 4:58 pm EST

Obozo is your typical hypocrite demoRAT. In his SOTU BS speech, he talks about drilling for more oil and building more nuclear power plants. He voted against these issues when he was a senator with the party of "NO", when Bush was in office. NOW he's all for these things. I guess NOW that he can take credit for getting these things done, so he is all for them. It's amazing how the demoRATs beg for bi-partisanship when they are in power. To them bi-partisanship means you have to agree to everything they want, but to hell with anything a Republican suggest.

2fer

February 3, 2010 - 6:27 pm EST

Or it could be that Obama trusts his advisers and judgment more than he trusted Bush's to get the job done right, and in that I would wholeheartedly agree. It should not be forgot that Pelosi and Reid did cooperate when they could with Bush during the last two years of his presidency on several issues of national concern. I remember very few 100% no votes from Congressional Democrats, certainly nothing like the 100% no votes made notorious by the current Congressional Republicans. The Democrats could have totally tied up any legislation Bush's team proposed, yet they didn't. IMHO, today's Republicans are working as hard as they can to further partisan ends rather than the good of our nation.

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 10:56 pm EST

Bush had some bad ideas, but his worst idea wasn't as bad as Obama's best idea. Porkulus bill: unemployment went from about 7% to 10%. Talking nice to our enemies: they think he is weak and a fool. Right on both counts. Trying KSM in NYC: the decision of a lunatic. Turning the Fruit of Kaboom bomber over to civilian justice system: ditto. A 2700 page health bill: double ditto. Creating confidence in the employers of the nation: no way, Jose.

I said two years ago that Obama was dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic, and hadn't proven himself competent for the job. Two years later, we can see that he is dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic, and incompetent. I said when the Christmas bomber was mirandized and given a lawyer that it was a mistake. We now see that it was. I said that the KSM idea was crazy, now they have admitted that it was. I said almost a year ago that porkulus was a huge waste of money that we didn't have, and we all know how unsuccessful it has been. I thought, and still think, that closing Gitmo was a foolish idea. I believe that Obama is a total screw-up, and I think things will get worse before they get better. And I agree that the Republican party should stop being the party of no. I think, and hope, that they will be the party of "Oh, Hell no."

dcolin

February 3, 2010 - 11:40 pm EST

"I said when the Christmas bomber was mirandized and given a lawyer that it was a mistake."

The latest info says your wrong.

2%

Maybe you are an idiot savant.

Thats it.

I,I,I You say I alot

Beachwalk

February 3, 2010 - 5:17 pm EST

""Come now, let us reason together ..." Isaiah 1:18"

Pitts is crazy. Trying to reason with demoRATs is like trying to reason with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You can't reason with unreasonable people, like Obozo, Reid and Pelosi.

2fer

February 3, 2010 - 6:48 pm EST

Pitts is an accomplished and usually very logical analyst and writer. Perhaps it is the quality and reasonableness of his writing that some reactionaries find so unsettling.
What is frequently unreasonable is political discourse, which perhaps was never meant to be reasonable in the first place. Were Republicans willing to reason about America's course, they would have much more influence over where and how we go. As long as their minority insists on setting the terms of debate, and of being a certain negatory should they not be allowed to set the terms of debate, then they will have less influence until the American people are convinced that they can indeed govern better. Today, the only political group less respected than Congressional Democrats is Congressional Republicans, and reactionaries should consider the people's scorn carefully before wishing for a change. It might be a good thing were we to have a respectable alternative, but as long as the Tea Party baggers idolize the likes of Sarah Palin, they can hardly expect to be taken as more than a destructive influence. Mass's Scott Brown has already distanced himself from both the baggers and the Congressional Republican leadership, and anyone overly surprised at Brown's victory - and this includes most of the national media - are ignorant of Massachusetts' history with Republican politicians from Brooke to Romney.

Sawdust

February 3, 2010 - 11:00 pm EST

I agree that Pitts is an accomplished writer, but for some reason he has his nose up Obama's rear end so far that he cannot be objective about the man. He can't see the big picture from his up-close and personal viewpoint. I wonder why? What do they have in common?

dcolin

February 3, 2010 - 11:35 pm EST

College he actually went to college.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search