2014 Journal of Ethics and Communication

A Resource for High Schools

2014: “Ethics, Communication and Political Civility”

A Project of the Ripon College Department of Communication

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction and Acknowledgements................................................................................. 1



Preface................................................................................................................................. 3

By Mary Stuckey, Ph.D



Incivility and the 1796 and 1800 United States Presidential Elections.............................. 7

By Ryan Riebe



Not at the Dinner Table: Civility and Politics Between Family Members....................... 15

By Sam Goodwin



Trolls, Politics, and You................................................................................................... 21

By Benjamin Firgens



Sport Metaphors in Politics............................................................................................... 29

By Nikki Glasheen



Incivility and Immigration in the United States: Is It Really Just A Dream?................... 37

By Kristin Chramowicz



Superior Civility: Jackie Robinson................................................................................... 45

By Taylor Smith



Nonverbal Language in Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates................................ 53

By Devin Seaholm



Civility in The Colbert Report.......................................................................................... 59

By Tsering Yangchen



The Range of Civility in American Protest....................................................................... 67

By Eric Radke



Discrimination or Incivility?............................................................................................. 75

By Jordan Hester



Obama’s Presidency: Incivility and Bumper Stickers...................................................... 81

By Alecia Pasdera



A Name as a Grenade: The Use of “Hitler” as a Weapon in Politics............................... 87

By Sunny Stroede

1

This 2014 edition is the third annual publication of the Ripon College Journal of Ethics and Communication. The theme of this year’s journal is “Ethics, Communication, and Political Civility.” In 2011, President Barack Obama addressed the nation on this subject, saying that “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 think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” It is our hope that this year’s journal will spur discussion about the importance of civility in American politics, just as it has among all of us as we have worked to bring this year’s journal to you.

While this journal may be filled with the work of twelve students, this journal would not exist without the help of several others. We would like to thank Dr. Mary Stuckey, Director of Graduate Studies and Professor of Communication at Georgia State University, who has graciously provided the preface to this journal and was kind enough to visit Ripon in October to deliver the keynote address for this year’s Forum on Ethics and Communication. Second, we would like to thank the Ripon College Communication Department, Classes of 2012 and 2013, for their work in pioneering this journal. We are honored to continue the tradition you have established. We would also like to thank Ric Damm, Director of Publications and Institutional Image at Ripon College, for his work in making the publication of this journal a reality. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Jody Roy, Professor of Communication at Ripon College, and Dr. Steve Martin, Associate Professor of Communication at Ripon College, both of whom have overseen the development of this journal throughout the course of the 2013-2014 academic year.

Thank You, Ripon College Department of Communication, Class of 2014

2

3 Preface Mary Stuckey, Ph.D.1 We cannot seem to stop talking about the importance of “civil” debate: we want our elected officials to behave more “civilly” to one another, we want citizens to listen to one another more and scream at one another less, and we want a community that is fair, responsive to the needs of community members, and kind. But this isn’t as simple as it may appear, because people seeking the first of these goals, “fairness,” must also often transgress norms of politeness in order to draw attention to injustice. It was not, for example, “civil,” for African American students to request service at segregated lunch counters, no matter how politely they couched that request. It is not “civil” for workers to strike in order to receive the pay and benefits their work merits. It is not “civil” for those who object to a war to converge in the streets in their attempt to prevent one. It is not “civil” to engage in forms of social protest that disrupt the social order. But it is often required if social justice is going to be possible, for those in power are unlikely to surrender that power, or to change the terms by which power is authorized, unless they are somehow pushed into doing so.

The simple view of democratic civility is that we should all be nice to one another, should follow obvious rules of decorum, and should behave in politics as we would at a dinner party—with conventionally “good manners.” The dinner party analogy is important here, because it indicates the ways in which this view of civility implies certain notions of class and belonging—and thus also certain kinds of exclusions. Those without power at the national dinner party should be neither seen nor heard but should accept their seats at the children’s table in the other room, content with simpler fare.

Mary Stuckey is Director of Graduate Studies and Professor of Communication at Georgia State University. In the fall semester of 2013, she served as the Ripon College Forum on Ethics and Communication Scholar.

1

4 It is also possible to think of civility as political friendship, a relationship in which disagreements are bound to occur between equals. Those differences should be respected and the parties to them reconciled. This notion of civility encompasses the idea that controversy is an inevitable part of a civic relationship and should be protected. Struggle is necessary, and so is accommodation, for they both lead to a more authentically democratic community. By ignoring power differences and assuming all parties are inherently equal, this view, however, can gloss over very real problems. Members of some groups are, to continue with my analogy, welcome to a seat at the grown up table, but they are there only so long as those seated at the head of the table permit it.

A truly democratic community would be one in which politics is not served on linen and eaten with silver, but as a buffet, with people milling about, jostling one another, and occasionally spilling things—because democracy is messy. It doesn’t mean tolerating those who disagree with you or even accommodating them; it means celebrating the mess. It means that those who most appear to be uncomfortable and who cause us the most discomfort are the ones most in need of being welcomed. They allow us to embrace the discomfort upon which political growth depends. It means that those who speak in modulated tones and those who run screaming through the party are equally worth attending to. It means that we will not just tolerate the odd relative in the corner, but bring her into the center of the festivities because inclusion is more important than decorum.

This, to me, is why forums like this are so important. The students who wrote these papers had to take the question of civility seriously, in all of its complexities. They had to grapple with the realization that civility, like democracy, is hard. They had to recognize that manners have an important place in a democratic society, and that adherence to them can be

5 exclusionary. They have had to struggle with the tension between how we conduct politics and what kinds of things we can do politically. And they have done so across a wide variety of cases and with enormous success. Their efforts help extend our ideas of civility and the democratic elements of our polity and for that, I thank them and their faculty.

6

7 Incivility and the 1796 and 1800 United States Presidential Elections Ryan Riebe2 Every four years, the citizens of the United States vote to decide who the president will be for the next four years, and with each new election comes the resurgence of negative campaign advertisements that rule the airwaves until voting ends on the first Tuesday in November. Just as negative political advertisements have become a campaign mainstay, so too have news stories of individuals complaining about negative political advertisements. One story from a television station in western Wisconsin during the 2008 presidential election quoted an individual as saying, “I just wish [negative political ads] were over,” before quoting another individual complaining about how she’s “getting sick of the back and forth misleading ads.”1 Discontent toward political discourse has become commonplace, as both political insiders and outsiders agree that negativity continues to get worse in American politics. In a letter to The New York Times titled “Uncivil Political Discourse,” Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton, wrote that “there is no doubt that metaphor and vocabulary have grown nastier in the nation’s capital.”2 Negative attacks between political candidates have led to a sort of “civility panic” in the United States, as observers of the political process decry the negativity and incivility associated with American campaigns. In reality, politics in the United States has always involved personal attacks on candidates, and modern attacks are much more civil than the attacks seen during America’s first presidential campaigns between founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Characterized by deceptive attacks against both candidates, the presidential campaigns of 1796 and 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson represent a low point for civility in American politics.

Ryan Riebe is from De Pere, WI and will graduate with a double major in Communication and Politics & Government. After graduation, Ryan will attend law school at the University of Minnesota.

8 Historical Background of the 1796 and 1800 Presidential Elections Prior to the United States presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both served in the administration of President George Washington, Adams as Vice President and Jefferson as Secretary of State.3 Although Adams and Jefferson became friends during the formative years of the United States, the two led competing political factions by the end of Washington’s presidency. Historian Edward Larson writes that “by 1800, the remnants of their former friendship had ended in a tangle of mutual suspicions and partisan animosities.”4 The split between Adams and Jefferson had, in reality, occurred prior to the 1796 presidential election, as is evidenced by the campaign discourse of the era.5 The sources of negative political attacks in the era of Adams and Jefferson are a major difference between the American political system as it exists today and the American political system of the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. Whereas newspapers in the twentyfirst century are generally viewed to be unbiased sources of information, many early American newspapers were partisan and openly advocated for and against specific political candidates depending on the political leaning of the specific newspaper’s editorial staff.6 As such, many of the political attacks made against Adams and Jefferson came from newspapers that sought to erode support from candidates of differing ideological perspectives.

Types of Argumentative Fallacies Ad hominem and slippery slope fallacies are two types of argumentative fallacies present within the negative attacks that were made against John Adams and Thomas Jefferson during the presidential campaigns of 1796 and 1800. Put simply, a fallacy is an argument that features an error in reasoning.7 An ad hominem argument is an argument against a person rather than the issue at hand. Of particular interest when studying the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections is

9 what Douglas Walton, Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric at the University of Windsor, calls “abusive ad hominem,” a subtype of ad hominem arguments in which “an arguer’s character is attacked in order to discredit [his/her] argument.”8 Ad hominem arguments can be considered fallacious because individuals making ad hominem arguments use attacks on their opponent’s character as the sole reason why their opponent is wrong, when, in reality, their opponent’s character likely has nothing to do with the merits of his/her arguments. As such, ad hominem arguments in political discourse serve as uncivil attacks that distract audiences from the actual merits of issue-based arguments by moving focus toward attacks on character that may or may not be true.

Slippery slope arguments are another type of fallacious argument seen in the uncivil discourse surrounding the presidential campaigns of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Douglas Walton defines the slippery slope fallacy as occurring “when one party warns a respondent that if he takes some contemplated course of action, it would trigger a whole series of ensuing events, unleashing an irresistible force that would result in some particularly horrible outcome for the respondent.”9 Essentially, slippery slope fallacies argue that one particular event will serve as a tipping point for several other events, eventually leading to negative consequences. Slippery slope arguments are considered to be fallacies because the events that are alleged to occur after a tipping point are often only loosely related, if they are related at all, and it cannot be reasonably concluded that any such events or negative consequences would occur as a result of the alleged tipping point. Nonetheless, slippery slope fallacies were common among political attacks in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries.

10 Fallacious Attacks and Incivility Toward John Adams Both the 1796 and 1800 presidential campaigns featured fallacious ad hominem attacks made against John Adams by Thomas Jefferson and his supporters. During the 1796 campaign, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the newspaper Aurora and grandson of Benjamin Franklin, published that Adams was a “champion of kings, ranks, and titles.”10 In 1800, Thomas Jefferson himself secretly hired a writer to publish negative attacks against then-President John Adams, resulting in Adams being called “a gross hypocrite” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”11 The attacks made during each of the aforementioned presidential elections are ad hominem attacks because none of the attacks focus on issues related to the presidency. Instead, these attacks divert the focus of citizens away from issues and toward negative attacks on the candidates themselves. The tendency of political discourse to use ad hominem attacks was not unique to Jefferson’s supporters, but the grossly exaggerated nature of the ad hominem arguments made against Adams provide one example of how political communication was actually much less civil following the founding of the United States than it is in the twenty-first century.

Just as supporters of Thomas Jefferson used fallacious ad hominem arguments in their attempts to defeat John Adams, so, too, did they turn to slippery slope arguments. During the 1796 presidential campaign, supporters of Jefferson claimed that if Adams were elected, he would bring hereditary succession to the presidency and make his son, John Quincy Adams, president following the conclusion of his term in office.12 Following Adams’ first term as president, supporters of Jefferson stepped up their slippery slope fallacies in 1800 by arguing that if Adams was re-elected, he would seek to reunite America with Great Britain by having one of

11 his sons marry one of the daughters of Britain’s King George III.13 John Adams had no intention to reunite Britain and the United States, nor did he seek to make his son his successor (though the American electorate did make him Jefferson’s successor). Such fallacious claims made about Adams by Jefferson’s supporters reflect once again the uncivil nature of American politics in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries.

Fallacious Attacks and Incivility Toward Thomas Jefferson Without question, supporters of Thomas Jefferson were guilty of making fallacious ad hominem arguments against John Adams, but so, too, were supporters of Adams guilty of doing the same to Jefferson. In 1796, Federalist supporters of Adams called Jefferson’s supporters “cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin,” while Jefferson himself was called an “anarchist.”14 By 1800, the ad hominem attacks against Jefferson increased as supporters of Adams called Jefferson a “godless atheist from whom one had to hide one’s Bibles,” while also asserting that Jefferson slept with slaves who worked at his home.15 Regardless of factual accuracy, the hateful tone of ad hominem attacks made against Jefferson make it apparent that both sides of the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections used fallacious ad hominem arguments to create a climate of extreme incivility in American politics.

In addition to ad hominem attacks, fallacious slippery slope attacks against Thomas Jefferson were also the norm during his campaigns against John Adams. Adams’ supporters argued that if Jefferson were to be elected, “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest [would] all be openly practiced.”16 According to author Joseph Cummins, one Connecticut newspaper asked if citizens were “prepared to see [their] dwellings in flames…female chastity violated, [and] children writhing on the pike?”17Just as Adams’ presidency wasn’t going to result in the return of monarchy to American soil, neither was a Jefferson presidency going to result in the

12 absolute decline of morality in the country, contrary to any fallacious political attacks made against Jefferson throughout the course of his presidential campaigns.

Reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson The presidential campaigns of 1796 and 1800 brought a high level of incivility to American politics from the outset of the nation’s history, ranking among the five dirtiest presidential elections of all time.18 Given the highly divisive nature of America’s first presidential campaigns, it is clear that incivility is hardly anything new in American politics. In fact, the current level of political incivility in the United States pales in comparison to the incivility seen from supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Despite tremendous animosity between Adams and Jefferson, the two were able to reconcile after both left office. In his book, Mudslingers, author Kerwin Swint describes the reconciliation between Jefferson and Adams: “After leaving office in 1809, Jefferson reached out to Adams. The two began corresponding with each other, and developed a mutual admiration. They stayed in contact with each other right up to their deaths, which amazingly, came on the same day, July 4, 1826 – the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.”19 Even after incredibly negative attacks, the ability of Adams and Jefferson to reconcile speaks volumes about the character of the two men, regardless of how each man described the other during their respective campaigns.

Conclusion In modern times, it is not uncommon for members of the public and members of the media to complain about the negative and uncivil state of American political discourse. These individuals lack an understanding of the political history of the United States. Analysis of the negative political discourse from supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson during the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections shows that the early years of American politics were much

13 more negative and uncivil than American politics today. For observers of American politics who decry the negativity currently associated with political campaigns, the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson should offer hope, and Adams and Jefferson’s example is not ahistorical. Recent presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who campaigned against each other during the 1992 presidential election, have since reconciled and formed a charity together to benefit citizens of Haiti.20 Former First Lady Barbara Bush recently said of her husband’s successor, “I love Bill Clinton.”21 If Adams and Jefferson were able to set aside their political differences and reconcile after two hard-fought, negative campaigns, perhaps those responsible for the current state of negativity in American politics will be able to do the same.

Discussion Questions 1. Which do you think is less civil, the ad hominem attacks that took place during the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections, or the types of personal attacks you see during modern political campaigns? Why? 2. Do you see a difference between ad hominem attacks and generic political attacks? Is one type of attack more civil than the other? Do you think personal attacks are a necessary part of political campaigns in the United States?

3. The author of this article suggests that the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson should provide hope for the future of politics in the United States. Do you agree or disagree that current politicians in the United States might be able to reconcile in the future? If yes, how might such reconciliation take place? If no, why do you think such reconciliation is impossible?

1

Kelly Schlict, “Negative Issue Ads Mislead and Annoy Voters but Aren’t Illegal,” WEAU, October 21, 2008, http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/31986424.html.

2 Mike McCurry, “Uncivil Political Discourse,” The New York Times, October 9, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/opinion/uncivil-political-discourse.html?_r=0.

14

3

Edward J. Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign (New York: Free Press, 2008), 3.

4 Larson, 4.

5 Joseph Cummins, Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns (Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books, 2007), 21.

6 Adam Voiland. “A Mudslide Aimed at Jefferson. (Cover Story).” U.S. News & World Report 144, no. 3 (January 28, 2008): 34. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 3, 2014).

7 Michael C. Labossiere, “Fallacies,” The Nizkor Project, accessed February 10, 2013, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/.

8 Douglas N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 191.

9 Douglas N. Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1995), 54.

10 Cummins, 21.

11 Cummins, 27.

12 Cummins, 23.

13 Kerwin C. Swint, Mudslingers: The Twenty-Five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time (New York: Sterling Publishing Co, 2008), 185.

14 Cummins, 21-23.

15 Cummins, 27.

16 Voiland, 34.

17 Cummins, 30.

18 Cummins, 25.

19 Swint, 188.

20 Trenton Daniel, “Bill Clinton, George W. Bush Haiti Fund Closing,” The Huffington Post, December 7, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/clinton-bush-fund-closing_n_2258878.html.

21 Tal Kopan, “Barbara Bush: ‘I love Bill Clinton,” Politico, January 21, 2014, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/barbara-bush-bill-clinton-102418.html.

15

Not at the Dinner Table: Civility and Politics Between Family Members Samantha Goodwin3

When you go to a big family event like a wedding, a reunion, or Thanksgiving, there are always a few topics you just do not discuss because you know people have different views and you do not want to cause problems. Money and religion are usually two of the top subjects to avoid because everyone seems to be particularly sensitive, and discussions quickly turn into arguments. The other big subject from which most families steer clear is politics; rarely do people of the same political party agree on absolutely everything, let alone people from opposing parties. Bringing up a political topic with a Democrat and a Republican in the same room could get downright ugly, especially if they happen to be your mother and grandfather.

If you have had this unfortunate experience you understand that the negative political advertisements you see on television during elections are nothing compared to the way family members treat each other when they get into an argument about a political subject. Often, namecalling and other personal attacks relating to the opinions one person holds that the other believes to be wrong are involved. Sometimes arguments get so heated that physical violence ensues – which is the height of incivility.

But it does not always have to be that way. There are ways to get along and interact with family members of different political views; civil discourse involving family and politics is absolutely possible. There is a campaign advertisement entitled “Father’s Son” for Carl Sciortino’s 2013 Congressional campaign which perfectly exhibits a civil discussion about politics between Carl and his father. Civility, especially in politics, is often equated with mere

Sam Goodwin is from Milwaukee, WI by way of New England. She has a voracious appetite for reading and intends to pursue a career in advertising.

16 politeness, but true political civility, as shown by this ad, is about authentic respect for other people’s views and opinions, not just the unwritten societal rules about appearing to be “nice.”

Background Carl Sciortino is a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and is currently in his ninth year in that position.1 He was born in July of 1978 in Massachusetts to conservative parents.2 Carl went to Tufts University for his undergraduate degree in Biology, and Harvard for his Masters in Public Administration.3 As a member of the Democratic Party, specifically calling himself a “Massachusetts liberal,” he was first elected to office in 2005 to represent the thirty-fourth Middlesex district of his home state.4 He is on several committees and has sponsored a number of bills for consideration in the House.5 Carl is one of the few openly gay members of the House in Massachusetts. A central theme of all of his campaigns is gay and transgender rights, and he has received awards from a number of advocacy groups for his work on that specific set of issues.6 The political ad that will be examined was for Sciortino’s 2013 campaign to become the representative of Massachusetts’ fifth Congressional district; Carl was hoping to replace the man who had held this position for thirty-seven years. In the ad, Carl and his father, whom we learn is a not only a Republican, but a member of the Tea Party, briefly discuss their differing views on a few key issues, with the purpose of revealing to viewers the direction Carl will take if they elect him to office. It is the manner in which they do so, however, that makes the biggest statement about how to deal with different political views among members of the same family.

Analyzing the Advertisement We’re all used to the typical ads for political campaigns that are negative in the extreme, the ones that tear down a candidate’s opponent by attacking something s/he did or said. If a

17 candidate’s family members are featured in an ad it’s usually to give some brilliant endorsement about what a good person his or her father/mother/sibling is. Carl Sciortino’s “Father’s Son” ad, on the other hand, is a new breed of political ad; by using upbeat music and light humor to create an overall friendly tone that complements the content, he exhibits true political civility.

“Father’s Son” lays the foundation for true civility in its soundtrack. Where negative campaign ads typically feature music designed to make you feel bad in some way – anxious, disturbed, dreadful – and other ads sound like the “feel good” moment of a parent-child relationship in a Disney movie, this ad’s background music is upbeat light jazz. It is music designed to put the viewer at ease and give them a hint as to how the ad is meant to be interpreted: as a friendly and lighthearted conversation about serious issues between a father and son from two opposite political parties. The music features drums and a trumpet accompanied by a bass and a piano, which puts the music in sharp contrast to that used by other politicians which is often heavy on violins or reminiscent of the soundtrack from a suspenseful movie. Based solely on the music, Carl Sciortino’s ad feels optimistic and cheerful, which is the perfect way to set up a civil interaction between people who should, as society usually tells us, be at each other’s throats.

The second piece of the puzzle that is true political civility is the way this advertisement uses humor throughout the commercial. Although they are clearly in different rooms that reflect their personalities, the ad is definitely set up to be a conversation between father and son. The commercial begins with Carl introducing himself and saying, “I’ll never forget that conversation with my dad.”7 His father jumps in with, “That’s me!,” then Carl goes on: “I had to come out and tell him…” and dad interjects teasingly, “Wait for this!”8 At this point we are only nine seconds into the ad and there is already clear, well-meaning humor at play. Based on the language Carl

18 uses and the way they lay out the conversation, the audience expects that they are reminiscing about the day Carl came out as gay to his father. Carl continues his previous thought with, “…that I’m a Massachusetts liberal,” to which his father responds playfully, “And he’s proud of it!”9 By hinting at the admission of Carl’s sexual orientation then revealing the actual topic to be his political views, the ad pokes fun at the usually serious issue of families and politics by comparing it to a subject that is even more personal and often more heated. Most importantly, their body language and tones of voice make it obvious that they are kidding around even as they proceed to discuss their vastly different opinions on important political topics, which goes a long way toward indicating that this is a prime example of true civility.

The most important part of creating this civil interaction is the way they talk in the remainder of the commercial and specifically the message at the end, before the written message asking for financial support. During the course of the next fifty seconds the Sciortino men discuss Carl’s work on issues like taxes, equal rights for the gay community, and gun control, during which his dad pretends to be exasperated and/or ashamed in an obviously humorous way.

At one point they mention a bill Carl wrote on protecting women visiting abortion clinics, and his father notes, “It went all the way to the Supreme Court,” then continues, “I was kind of proud of that.”10 At the end of the main part of the commercial Carl says, “And I still love you, Dad,” and his father replies, “Me too, son.”11 These two exchanges are exactly what make this ad an example of true civility. Despite the fact that their thoughts on the issues they bring up are totally opposite, rather than attack each other both the elder and the younger Sciortino show not only respect for the other’s opinions, but, ultimately, unconditional love.

19 Media Response and Implications In the modern world of aggressive politics and increasingly negative campaign advertisements, Carl Sciortino’s unmistakably stands out, and the media noticed. As Eric Randall, the author of a Boston Magazine article on the commercial put it, “the [ad] has given the candidate in a race with basically no national profile a huge amount of national attention. It’s seen coverage in The New York Times, the Washington Post, and NPR.”12 The article goes on to quote other authors, for example, “It reminds us of what we hope political exchanges can be like: no flame throwing, no cheap shots, no yelling. One man who has beliefs the other man finds abhorrent. But the political divisions between the two don’t come between their personal relationship,’ writes Stonehill, [a] political science professor on MassPoliticsProfs.com.”13 Another article on the ad was titled, “This Campaign Ad Is Actually Adorable,” and describes how “The two have a witty back-and-forth dialogue for about a minute about why Sciortino Jr.’s liberal views surprise his father.”14 The ad is also called “jovial” and “heartwarming,” two adjectives that are rarely, if ever before, applied to an advertisement for a political campaign.15 The main point of these articles is to highlight a positive and friendly interaction between not just two people from different political parties, but between a Democrat and a Republican in the same family.

Carl Sciortino’s “Father’s Son” commercial illustrates that respectful political discourse between family members with opposing views is more than possible; it’s pretty easy if you actually try. Civility stems from the recognition that we can have discussions with others who may hold opposite viewpoints, and that these discussions don’t have to devolve into shouting matches. When it comes to families and politics, these dialogues also don’t have to end with ruined holiday meals. No matter the politics that you practice or believe, in the end it’s the

20 familial relationship that’s most important, and the ad for Carl Sciortino’s campaign beautifully illustrates that true political civility between family members is possible when we remember that simple fact.

Discussion Questions 1. Do you agree with the argument that true civility in politics, especially between family members, is possible? Why? 2. What are your thoughts on the value of civility? Is it good for society or is a certain amount of incivility necessary? Why and how much?

3. Carl Sciortino lost the election. Do you think a negative campaign ad, rather than the one discussed in this paper, would have helped him win? Explain why or why not.

1

“Carl Sciortino,” Facebook, accessed February 20, 2014, https://www.facebook.com/carl.sciortino?fref=ts Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 “About Carl,” Carl Sciortino, accessed February 20, 2014. http://www.electcarl.org/carl.html 5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 “Carl Sciortino ‘Father’s Son,’” YouTube, accessed February 20, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3S1zcbWkoM 8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 “Everyone’s Gushing Over Carl Sciortino’s Father-Son Campaign Ad,” Boston Magazine, September 18, 2013.

2

13

Ibid.

Amber Phillips. The Denver Post – National Politics. September 18, 2013. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24120423/this-campaign-ad-is-actually-adorable 15 Randall; Jess Bidgood. “Father and Son Declare a Political Truce, for 60 Seconds.” The New York Times.

September 17, 2013. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/father-and-son-declare-a-political-truce-for60-seconds/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 14

21 Trolls, Politics, and You Benjamin Firgens4 For better or worse, online services such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram keep us connected to each other constantly. Never mind if you have no interest in seeing what your friend John Doe had for dinner – if you’re friends with him on Instagram, you’ll probably find out. While this level of constant digital communication can be irritating at worst when it comes to little things like John’s dinner, it has a large impact on how we discuss more important issues online. When was the last time you saw a discussion about politics between two strangers online that was productive? How about the last one that wasn’t outright rude and nasty? Have you ever seen one that was polite, for that matter? Like it or not, an important arena of public debate is now the internet, and its importance is growing daily. A trend growing more prominent in the public eye alongside the internet is “trolling,” or doing rude or troublesome things for the sake of getting a rise out of someone. Behavior like this is nothing new – as we’ll see shortly, it’s as old as recorded time – but the internet allows for it to be present in public conversation like never before. The goal of this essay is to look at the ways people troll when it comes to political discussions online and ask the following question: does anything civil and productive come from trolling?

Defining a “Troll” For proof that trolling is still a young phenomenon, realize that there is no solid definition for this usage of the word. Urbandictionary.com, a popular website which crowd sources definitions for slang and for words that are too new to fit into any proper dictionary, defines it as

Benjamin Firgens is from Oregon, WI, graduating with a Communication major and an English minor. After graduation he will be pursuing a Master’s degree in the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University.

22 follows: “Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.”1 While the content on Urbandictionary is user-generated and is, therefore, not completely trustworthy, this definition closely matches the word as it is commonly used by today’s youth.

Because this definition of the word is new, it has several other specific meanings beyond referring to a simple troublemaker. In the world of U.S. law, the word can refer to “patent trolls,” defined as companies “which existed only to own broad patents for an idea (for example, the ability to receive e-mail on a wireless device) and which then aggressively sued the biggest players in the industry surrounding that idea.”2 Companies like this have caused so much trouble the U.S. Congress tried to reform the patent system in an effort to combat them.3 Even when referring to someone “innocently” causing trouble, the word can have different meanings depending on its context. For example, trolls are not always online; causing mischief and messing with people away from a computer can easily earn you the label as well.

The word’s definition is also changing as it becomes more frequently used by the general public. Ask five different people, “what is trolling?” and you may get five definitions, which, while sharing the same core, are different in the details. Who, then, is a troll? The answer is changing all the time and by nature is not specific; for the purposes of this paper, we’ll define it as someone who does something out of the ordinary to purposefully cause anger or any kind of negative reaction.

Great Trolls in History The internet shines a spotlight on political trolls, but causing mischief in politics is not actually a new practice. There are many historical examples of what we would now call trolling that occurred well before the term was ever coined. All the way back in ancient Rome, the

23 legendary politician and lawyer Cicero came up with a theory for how useful the ability to make fun of your opponents is. He was not the first to recognize this; regarding political satire in ancient Greece, Anjali Suniti Bal, et. al., write, “Satire in Greece was highly emotive.

Aristophanes and his compatriots directed men on stage to wear giant phallic symbols on their heads to indicate personality or nature. There were numerous plays written questioning the role of politicians and mocking them openly on stage.”4 In the thousands of years since, politicians and political commentators have been busy perfecting the art of making a joke out of their opponents.

One form of political commentary that has deep roots in American history is the political cartoon. Joan Conners writes, “Political cartoons provide humorous commentary, often using exaggeration of events or individual characteristics, on contemporary issues and events.”5 There are few major national debates or figures that have escaped being made fun of by the cutting wit of political cartoonists. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, was the target of many cartoons over the course of his political career. One such cartoon published in 1860 depicts Lincoln crossing a tightrope with an African American man on his back, carrying a balancing pole titled “Constitution.” The cartoon is captioned, “THE COMING MAN’S PRESIDENTIAL CAREER.”6 An example of a political cartoon from recent politics is found in the portrayal of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primaries. One cartoon shows “an anchor at a news desk with a picture of Obama titled ‘Masterful Orator’; the anchor states, ‘Next, we’ll tell you what Obama meant to say.’ Such an image suggests not only Obama’s weakness in his campaign rhetoric but the mass media’s willingness to avoid critiquing Obama during the campaign.”7 By making a joke out of the otherwise serious world of politics, political cartoons have been trolling the political world for hundreds of years.

24 No one in recent memory has been a more impressive political troll than a man by the name of Dick Tuck. He got his start in politics in 1950 as a campaign worker for Helen Gagahan Douglas, who at the time was running for a California Senate seat. Douglas’s opponent was another then-youngster in politics: Richard Nixon.8 To damage Nixon’s campaign, Tuck managed to get hired as a member of Nixon’s campaign team. His first act on the job was to book Nixon a speech in the largest auditorium on the University of California campus. Tuck intentionally did not publicize the speech at all, and only about forty students showed up to hear Nixon speak in a venue with the seating capacity for four thousand. Even those forty would leave disappointed: Tuck spoke first and rambled nonsense in a long-winded introduction before turning the microphone over to Nixon and asking him to speak about the International Monetary Fund. Nixon, of course, was not prepared in the slightest to speak about the International Monetary Fund, and gave a short and flustered speech.9 One of the most unique political rivalries of the 20th century was afoot.

Later antics of Tuck’s include giving falsely low estimates of Nixon’s rally sizes to the media by posing as a fire marshal; coaching an elderly woman to give Nixon a televised hug after his first debate with Kennedy, while saying, “That's all right, Mr. Nixon. He beat you last night, but you'll win next time”; hiring pregnant women to appear at Nixon’s rallies with shirts bearing Nixon’s slogan of “Nixon’s the one”; and instructing a Chinatown crowd welcoming Nixon to bear signs which, while appearing to carry supportive messages, actually had criticisms of Nixon written on them in Chinese.10 Tuck’s reputation for mischief makes it difficult to separate fiction from fact when reviewing his legacy. One often told, but never confirmed, story has Tuck donning a train conductor’s uniform and, while Nixon was still giving a speech off of the rear platform, convincing the engineer to pull the train away from the station. Although some

25 of these stories in Tuck’s history are likely false, they show how strong the legend Tuck built around himself was.

By all accounts, Tuck was a troll. Had the internet existed at the time of his antics, it’s likely he would have found some creative way to use it to torment Nixon. Through the examples of Tuck, political cartoonists, and even politicians of the ancient world like Cicero, trolling is clearly shown to be a new label on an old action. The internet is simply a new development of this ancient political tradition.

Trolls in Online Politics Where do trolls show up in online discussions of politics? While it’s impossible to judge someone’s true intent from across cyberspace, many who participate in the comment sections of politically-focused articles and videos seem to be intent on being obnoxious about their opinions purely to rile up others. In general, rude comments are such a widespread problem online that sociologists have actually cooked up a lengthy title for the phenomenon: “Online Toxic Disinhibition Effect.”11 In plain language, people are more likely to be rude to others online.

Don’t take my word for it – Google any political topic, find the first article, and read the comments on it. You are almost guaranteed to find less than savory language. This is an obvious example of people trolling each other about politics online.

Another place where trolls show up is the newly booming area of internet memes, humorous pictures with recurring taglines. Political candidates were not spared from becoming memes themselves during the last presidential election. Another simple Google search, this time searching the name of any political candidate with the word “meme” after his or her name, will prove the point. Said memes tend to mock the candidates for their most commonly criticized attributes. Memes about Mitt Romney, for instance, focus almost entirely on portraying him as

26 greedy and corporate.12 While they are almost always designed first with humor in mind, memes can be considered a form of trolling when they are also designed to incite anger.

On January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum on the topic of “Transparency and Open Government,” in which he called for the creation of “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”13 One result of this call was a website titled “We the People,” where visitors can create and electronically “sign” petitions. Petitions which receive enough signatures automatically receive a response from the White House. Born out of good intentions to increase government responsiveness to public concerns, the website has become a focal point for discussions about the quality of online input in politics because it is so frequently targeted by trolls. The majority of petitions represent honest concerns, such as “Oppose Trade Agreement between Taiwan and China” and “Support Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs).”14 Many of them, however, are far-fetched. For example, a petition created on November 14, 2012, titled, “Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016” attracted national attention when it was signed over 30,000 times. The tongue-incheek official response, titled “This isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For,” frankly explained how there wasn’t room in the government’s budget for a Death Star. For many, the episode begged the question of whether or not the website is of any use.15 The website is a perfect microcosm of the larger issues surrounding online participation in politics. On the surface, a digital doorway into the White House for citizens to voice their concerns seems to be a wonderful way to encourage participation in our democracy. Ridiculous petitions calling for Death Stars, however, carry the risk of attracting attention to the website as a novelty and as a joke instead of presenting it as a serious outlet for public concern. In this way, trolling actually silences legitimate participation in politics. Most people who are aware of the

27 website are likely aware of it because of mischievous petitions and not because of serious petitions to get the government to change its policy. By pulling the spotlight of public attention off the serious issues, trolls are effectively silencing them for the sake of a laugh. On a website designed to be the front line of an effort to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government,” the top petition as of this writing is to “Deport Justin Bieber and Revoke his Green Card.” Forcing the government to respond to such a petition is certainly without precedent, and perhaps that’s with good reason. Trolling walks a fine line between being harmless fun and being dangerously distracting.

Is Trolling Civil?

This line, between productive and counterproductive trolling, returns us to the question of whether or not trolling is a civil or an uncivil act. On one hand, an action that only intends to provoke anger or a laugh does not seem to be useful to democracy. On the other hand, actions such as Dick Tuck’s seem so humorous and innocent that it’s difficult to call them damaging to democracy either. Are modern forms of trolling, such as internet memes, simply harmless fun?

So much political discussion now happens on the internet, and so much of that discussion includes trolls, that it doesn’t seem fair to dismiss trolling as unimportant. There is a middle ground. Somewhere before trolling crosses the line, it can exist as a positive force within our democracy. The trouble is reaching any kind of consensus on where that line sits.

If history is anything to go by, this is an issue that will never go away. Athens’s version of trolls paraded around on stage, making fun of politicians by wearing phalluses on their heads.

Dick Tuck, master troll of the 1950s, dogged Nixon’s every step, always ready with a witty way to turn the politician into the butt of a joke. Across history, examples like these prove the point that satire has always been around in politics and is here to stay. As technology rapidly changes

28 how we communicate and takes trolling all the way to the White House’s digital front door, the question of its worthiness in our democracy is more relevant now than ever before.

Discussion Questions 1. Is trolling a good or a bad thing? Does it help or hurt the political process?

2. Do you think trolling is here to stay, or is it a passing fad? How might it evolve and change in the future?

3. How else does the internet affect the political process? How do candidates campaign online? How does media coverage of elections work online?

1

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling Kirk Teska, “Patent Trolls,” Mechanical Engineering 133 no. 8 (2011): 35-38 3 Mark A. Lemley, Douglas A. Melamed, “Missing the Forest for the Trolls,” Columbia Law Review 113 no. 8 (2013) 2117-2189 4 Anjali Suniti Bal, Leyland Pitt, Pierre Berthon, Phillip DesAutels, “Caricatures, Cartoons, Spoofs and Satires: Political Brands as Butts,” Journal of Public Affairs 4 no. 9 (2009) 229-237 5 Joan Conners, “Barack Versus Hillary: Race, Gender, and Political Cartoon Imagery of the 2008 Presidential Primaries,” American Behavioral Scientist 3 no. 54 (2010) 298-312 6 “The Coming Man’s Presidential Carrer, A La Blondin,” Harpweek.com, accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.abrahamlincolncartoons.info/SubPages/Cartoon.php?UniqueID=163 7 Harpweek.com, 304.

8 Stephen J. Whitfield, “Nixon as a Comic Figure,” American Quarterly 37 no.1 (1985) 114-132 9 Whitfield, 122.

10 Whitfield, 123.

11 Chris Baraniuk, “End of anonymity,” New Scientist 2940 no. 220 (2013) 34-37 12 htps://www.google.com/search?q=mitt+romney+meme&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u8sXU5yuL4XayAH S1YD4Cg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=941&bih=951, accessed 3/5/14 13 “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-12.pdf 14 “We Petition the Obama Administration to,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed March 25, 2014. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0 15 “Secure Resources and Funding, and Begin Construction of a Death Star by 2016,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed March 25, 2014. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-constructiondeath-star-2016/wlfKzFkN 2

29 Sport Metaphors in Politics By: Nikki Glasheen5 America is a nation obsessed with sports. From cheering on teams participating in the Stanley Cup for hockey to the Super Bowl for football, sports have long been a way for people to make connections with some and rivalries with others. Sports dominate the world’s attention every two years during the winter or summer Olympics and can be used as a way to show pride for a team, a city, or a nation. Since sports are so prevalent in our county, it should not come as a surprise that sport references and sport metaphors are often used in political communication. In every sport, there is a set of rules that participants must follow - a code of conduct athletes must agree to before they are able to participate. But does this code of conduct prevail in politics, and would following this code change the level of civility in political communication? Throughout this paper, one will see how sports metaphors are used by elected officials, and that the sports code of conduct is rarely followed in the world of politics.

Sports Code of Conduct In school-sanctioned sports it is a common requirement that a “code of conduct” must be signed by the participating individual before they are able to join a team. Each state has its own association that puts together guidelines that must be followed by high school athletes, along with consequences for breaking the rules. Every individual high school sport has the power to add additional rules and punishments onto the existing list. They do not, however, have the power to change the base rules if they wish to get funded by the state for their sport and maintain membership in the association that sanctions championships. For the purpose of this paper the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) will be used as an example.1

Nikki Glasheen is from Door County, WI. She has a major in Communication and a minor in Psychology. Following graduation, Nikki plans on a career in public relations or marketing.

30 The WIAA has strict rules participants must follow to ensure the safety of athletes and spectators and to create an even playing field for competition. Within the rules, there are five fundamentals of sportsmanship that frame the code of conduct: gain an understanding and appreciation for the rules of the contest, exercise representative behavior at all times, exhibit respect for officials, openly display respect for the opponent at all times, and display pride in your actions at every opportunity.2 If players or fans break this code of conduct during the sporting event, display profanity, make racist or sexist comments, or engage in other intimidating or taunting actions, they will be removed from the event.3 This short list of actions that will not be tolerated is read aloud before every WIAA sporting event. The WIAA also frequently references the saying, “Sportsmanship reveals character regardless of the final outcome.”4 Because violations of sportsmanship can cost teams the ability to compete, high school sporting events in Wisconsin are usually quite civil.

Sport Metaphors in Politics Since athletics is something that many Americans are able to connect with and understand, sport metaphors are often used in politics in an attempt to make difficult topics more accessible. Another reason that sport metaphors are used so often in American politics is because sports encourage loyalty, commitment, courage, and the “never say die” attitude.5 The characteristics associated with sports are the same ones that people expect to see in their elected officials.

There are two parts to metaphor: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor of a metaphor is the subject: the actual item that is under discussion which the speaker tries to describe by comparison to something else. The vehicle is what is used to transform the understanding of the tenor (subject) into another object.6 For example, when saying, “Every soccer match is a battle,”

31 the tenor would be the match and the vehicle would be the battle, since the match is being compared to a battle.

Two good examples of sport metaphors in political communication can be seen in statements by President George H.W. Bush and President Barack Obama. When talking about his election, President George H.W. Bush referred to the campaign as a “marathon, not a sprint.”7 Bush also used many sport metaphors related to football; for instance, he described progress on a policy by saying, “we are close to the end zone but haven’t scored the touchdown yet,” and “we’re still in the first quarter, there is still a lot of time left on the clock.”8 President Barack Obama also turns to sport metaphors when trying to reach a large audience about topics that are controversial or hard for some to fully understand. This was seen often when he advocated for the Affordable Care Act. When referring to this bill, Obama made many football references such as, “I am the quarterback,” and “We fumbled big time.”9 These metaphors have become so prominent in politics that often time people do not notice when they are being used. Phrases or words such as “underdog,” “root for,” “finalists,” “making a comeback,” and “rookie” are just a few examples of sport metaphors that appear so often in the world of politics we forget they are actually metaphors. Although politicians frequently rely on sport metaphors to communicate, do they also follow the rules of civility to which sports players and fans must agree?

Ted Cruz and Wendy Davis To examine these ideas further, extensive speeches by Ted Cruz, a Republican Senator from Texas, and Wendy Davis, a Democratic Texas legislator, will be analyzed.10 The state these individuals represent does not play a role in the analysis of their speeches; in fact, it is purely coincidental both are from Texas. These two individuals’ speeches are analyzed because they

32 represent actions in the government that, according to the sports code of conduct, may be considered uncivil. While both of these speeches were similar, Davis’s got the title of a legitimate filibuster, but Cruz’s was simply considered a long speech designed to waste time.

On September 25, 2013, Ted Cruz took the floor of the Senate to give his thoughts on the bill at hand: The Affordable Care Act, known to opponents as “Obama Care.” Cruz spoke for twenty-one hours straight, and even though he considers himself to be “Anti-Obama Care,” he did not spend the whole twenty-one hours of his time discussing the bill and analyzing its downfalls. Instead, in the eyes of many, Ted Cruz spoke about anything and everything that happened to wander into his head while at the podium. He used some of his time to discuss the bill at hand, but spent most of his time talking about restaurants such as Denny’s and White Castle. He referred to Star Wars and actors such as Ashton Kutcher; he even went as far as to talk about childhood bedtime stories such as Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss.11 When Ted Cruz finally stopped talking and stepped off the floor, there were mixed reviews from the American audience. Cruz claimed that after his speech his office received roughly three thousand phone calls, most of which were supportive.12 But, again, a good majority of his time speaking on the floor was not addressing the issue at hand: The Affordable Care Act. Even though he received positive feedback from his supporters on his actions, the level of civility of his actions was brought into question. Cruz’s speech was not considered a filibuster. A filibuster is a recognized and acceptable political tactic used by members of Congress in an attempt to prolong or stop the signing of any bill by talking at length about the issue at hand, thus delaying a timely vote. Cruz did not use the time to issue a detailed attack on the Affordable Care Act. Instead, he strayed from the issue at hand more often than not, talking about anything

33 that came to his mind, most of which had no bearing on any political issues relevant to Congress at the time.

Extensive speeches and filibusters are not seen only on one side of the party line; both Republicans and Democrats are caught in the act of “stalling” the other side or “team.” The same week that Ted Cruz took the floor in the Senate to discuss the Affordable Care Act, Wendy Davis took the floor of the Texas Legislature. She was attempting to stop a bill from being passed that would make abortions illegal in Texas.13 In order to do so, Davis made a lengthy speech about the abortion bill at hand. Her hope was that by the time she got off the podium, there would no longer be any time for the legislature to take the necessary action of signing the bill into law. Since her goal was to conduct a filibuster, she was not allowed to discuss any topic other than the abortion bill at hand. Davis spoke about the bill for eleven hours straight without leaving the floor for any reason and without leaning on the podium for support.14 The actions taken by Cruz and Davis were considered legal actions according to the government’s “rule book,” but this does not necessarily mean they were civil. Davis conducted a filibuster with the intention of stalling a bill which many of her opponents were eager to pass. If one is following the sportsmanship code of conduct, this would be blatantly disrespecting the opponents. Because her tactic denied the other “team” the ability to “play” by making their arguments in favor of the bill, her actions would not be considered “representative behavior” according to the code of conduct. The behavior shown by Davis was technically legal, but is not thought highly of by some, especially those who are on the “other team.”15 Cruz also exhibited legal yet uncivil action by participating in a long speech with no direct intentions. He had a grasp of the rules and followed them perfectly, but, just like Davis, did not display “representative behavior at all times.” Instead, he went off on tangents not

34 pertaining to politics, and in doing so exhibited disrespect for the opponents by not allowing them to speak. Due to Cruz’s uncivil intentions, it is difficult to argue that he was able to exhibit pride in his actions, which is a large component of the sportsmanship code of conduct held by the WIAA.16 While politicians use sport metaphors often in their communication, it appears by looking at Cruz and Davis that they do not actually follow the sportsmanship code of conduct that creates an “equal playing field.”

Conclusion Ted Cruz and Wendy Davis both attempted to speak as long as they possibly could without leaving the floor for any reason. While they were speaking for different lengths of time and on different topics, their intentions were ultimately the same: attempting to force a point by “stalling” the meeting. This act is technically allowed by the government, but it is frowned upon by many, especially those on the opposing side. Acts like this in sports would be considered unsportsman-like and the individual (or the team as a whole) would get charged a penalty or have a forced time out. When these acts occur in politics, similar anger is shown by individuals on the opposing side of the issue, but technically no rule is being broken so nothing can be done to stop the behavior.

Often we see sport metaphors being used by politicians. When it comes down to it, however, many politicians do not follow the code of conduct to which athletes are held. A code of conduct is established so that sporting events are as equal and civil as possible, but while politicians use sport metaphors in their speeches, they often are not following the same standards of sportsmanship themselves. This was seen in Wendy Davis’s and Ted Cruz’s speeches: both broke the code of conduct by not exhibiting representative behavior at all times, openly

35 displaying respect for the opponent, and displaying pride in their actions at every opportunity.17 Cruz and Davis simply did what they needed to do to make a point.

Discussion Questions 1. Would you consider the acts by Ted Cruz and Wendy Davis to be un-sportsman-like and therefore, uncivil?

2. How might political debates change if elected officials followed the same code of conduct that athletes are held to?

3. What rules would you include in a political code of conduct to ensure more civil behavior by elected officials?

1

Fundamentals of Sportsmanship," Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.wiaawi.org/Schools/Sportsmanship.aspx.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Bineham Jeffery, "Some Ethical Implications of Team Sports," Communication Reports (1991): 37, accessed Februrary 4, 2014. http://web.stcloudstate.edu/jbineham/publications/Team_Sports_Metaphors.pdf 6 "Shmoop, We Speak Student," Shmoop University, Inc, accessed February 11, 2014, http://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/metaphor.html.

7 "Bush runs White House with sport metaphors," NBCNews.com, accessed February 4, 2014, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19774480/ns/politics/t/bush-runs-white-house-sports-metaphors/ 8 Ibid.

9 Decker, Cathleen, "Obama's sports metaphors: Obama Care as slippery football." Los Angeles Times, (2013), accessed February 4, 2014, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/15/news/la-pn-obamacare-obama-football-golf20131115 10 Cruz, Ted. "TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Ted Cruz’s marathon speech against Obamacare on Sept. 24." Washington Post, (2013): 25, accessed March 24, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/25/transcript-sen-tedcruzs-filibuster-against-obamacare/ 11 Sullivan, Sean, "The Best of Ted Cruz’s Marathon Speech," The Washington Post, (2013), accessed February 4, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/24/the-best-of-ted-cruzs-filibuster-so-far-in-3minutes-video/ 12 Ibid.

13 Greg, Henderson, "Famous For Filibuster, Wendy Davis to Run For Texas Governor," NPR News, (2013): 26, accessed February 4, 2014, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/26/226642638/famous-for-filibusterwendy-davis-to-run-for-texas-governor.

14 Ibid.

15 “Fundamentals of Sportsmanship," Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.wiaawi.org/Schools/Sportsmanship.aspx.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

36

37 Incivility and Immigration in the United States: Is It Really Just A Dream?

Kristin Chramowicz6 In American culture, incivility surrounds us in everyday activities. Incivility can be simply defined as being uncivil, which entails bad manners, being rude, impolite, or discourteous.1 Sometimes uncivil occurrences take the form of political comments, gestures, or actions, but there are many other incidents of incivility seen throughout American history. Some of the bigger issues this country faces stem from smaller acts of incivility. One home-grown issue that has been debated for centuries is immigration policy and the uncivil acts some “nativeborn” Americans engage in against those who are not born in America or who do not fit the stereotypical image some people hold of an American. Rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver argues that at the center of every culture is a tyrannizing image which is “the idea of a culture’s excellence, an image of an ideal perfection and exclusive to those who do not embody this image.”2 With this theory as a base, this paper will analyze and challenge the uncivil actions and stigma associated with immigrants, the idea of the American Dream and one’s ability to achieve it, and the capability the younger generations of this country have to help diminish antiimmigrant stigma and, through civil acts, help make the American Dream a reality for all.

Immigrants in History One issue America has been facing since its founding is that of immigrants being treated differently than those who are born in America. American demographics can be understood through two metaphors: a melting pot and a salad bowl. The melting pot refers to various metals being melted together to form one substance, thus, in a society many different cultures, races, lifestyles, etc., are integrated into one.3 The salad bowl metaphor is a similar concept, where each Kristin Chramowicz is from Elgin, Illinois, graduating with a major in Communication. Upon graduation, Kristin seeks employment in event coordination within the sports or performing arts fields.

38 ingredient represents different cultures, but all are mixed together while still keeping their own identity.4 Both of these metaphors imply the goal of some kind of cohesiveness as a culture and therefore encourage people from other countries who immigrate to become part of the group by becoming American citizens. However, many immigrants are treated uncivilly because their race, ethnicity, or even religion excludes them from the tyrannizing image. Among those excluded are people who do not personify the stereotype of an American, which is traditionally conceived as white, Christian, and middle to upper class; those who don’t fit the stereotypical ideal are treated differently even if they were born in America, in some cases even if their greatgreat- great- grandparents were born in America.5 As different groups of people have immigrated to America, many of them have been targeted by discrimination and, at times, violence, simply because they have not fit the notion of “American.” Ironically, one of the first groups to be subjected to uncivil behavior for being considered “non-American” was Native Americans. Before Europeans “discovered” America, Native Americans had already established communities, built homes and cultures, established trade, and innovated in farming and arts.6 Yet, when Europeans came to America, much of what the Native Americans did was disregarded and even destroyed. Native Americans were harassed and forced to conform to British cultural ideals.7 Some Native Americans were forced to assimilate to British culture; others were abused and treated much like slaves.8 Because the Native Americans did not fit the tyrannizing image of British culture (based on their physical appearance and cultural values and ideas), they endured harshly uncivil attacks.

When Africans were brought to America as slaves they, too, were treated brutally and denied rights. Likewise, people of African descent who were free in the United States were dehumanized and often lived in fear they would lose their freedom. This is another example of

39 the British and, in time, American tyrannizing image controlling who had power and who did not, as well as an example of whiteness being a privilege in the United States. From the moment the settlers from Europe took power in North America, those who were not of a European ethnicity were treated negatively, often only because they were excluded by the tyrannizing image. Both African and Native American people could not embody the physical, race-based tyrannizing image of European culture and, as a result, endured incivility regularly.

A similar pattern of discrimination occurred in the United States with people who physically fit the tyrannizing image, but culturally did not. In the nineteenth century, Irish immigrants, in particular, were frequently targeted in many cities, including New York and Philadelphia. The Irish, who were mostly Catholic, were stigmatized because their beliefs did not meet the expectations of the tyrannizing image. The Irish Catholic immigrants were perceived by native-born Protestants to be poor, uneducated, and unskilled - which were all factors that put them at the bottom of economic and social structures.9 Because most of the Irish practiced a different form of Christianity they were perceived to hold different cultural and political values, ones that some “anti-Catholics” felt were a threat to America. At the peak of anti-Catholic activity in the 1840s, Irish Catholics actually were viewed as a separate “race” and subject to full discrimination.10 Today, due to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the perception that more people are illegally immigrating over the southern border, people thought to be Muslim, Arab, or Hispanic are often targeted with incivility even if they were born and raised in America. When we discriminate against people we stereotype to be excluded from the tyrannizing image, we are setting ourselves up to commit uncivil acts. Obviously, not all Hispanic people are illegal immigrants. Likewise, not all Muslims or people of Arab ethnicity are terrorists. However, when

40 we allow ourselves to stereotype people in such ways---when we focus on superficial traits that might exclude them from the tyrannizing image---we overlook a more important truth: that a person’s citizenship and loyalty may be American. In fact, in civil action and deed, they might be more truly “American” than we are when we choose to behave uncivilly toward those who want to partake in the American Dream that is the hallmark of our nation of immigrants.

The American Dream Achieving what many have referred to as the American Dream is hard for some people who are born and raised in America and even harder for those who are not. Regardless, it is the ever-present promise of our culture. In his book, The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea That Shaped a Nation, Jim Cullen quotes Henry David Thoreau, stating, “the Dream assumes that one can advance confidently in the direction of one’s Dreams to live out an imagined life.”11 The possibility of obtaining the American Dream has been something in which this country always has taken pride, particularly when urging people to become American citizens.

Henry David Thoreau’s notion of the American Dream suggests it is open to anyone willing to aspire to achieve it. That possibility is the reason many people immigrate in hopes of becoming American citizens. Yet, many immigrants face rejection and struggles when they do come to America. Incivility towards immigrants contradicts the American Dream. Recall from the earlier section of this paper the many and varied groups of people who have been or now are being targeted for not fitting the tyrannizing image. These same people often needed someone to stand up for their right to pursue the American Dream. The people who have been stigmatized the most are often unable to obtain this “Dream” on their own, not because they are incapable of success, but because discrimination makes success impossible for them. The American Dream is

41 a part of our national identity, a “Dream” that, no matter one’s religion, ethnicity, or language, everyone should be capable of obtaining.12 Being Proactive with Civility Incivility becomes dangerous when we target others because they do not fit the tyrannizing image. Many times those who are perceived as un-American or don’t fit the tyrannizing image are treated much differently (often in a very negative manner) and statements are made to make them feel wrong for being in America. America is a country of immigrants that encourages people to come here and work toward the American dream, but when people engage in uncivil behavior when dealing with issues of immigration we are not allowing ourselves to grow and become a stronger nation. The more we are proactive and engaged in civil acts, the fewer issues there will be regarding immigration.

Incivility is an issue which can be ended on many basic levels. One of the first ways to stop incivility toward immigrants is to stop assuming that those who fall outside the tyrannizing image are immigrants who do not belong in America. Stigmatizing someone based on his or her appearance is an uncivil act that suppresses the country’s capability of offering the American Dream to all. A second way to stop incivility is to fight for those who are the targets of uncivil acts. Being civil on an individual level is not enough. There are many instances where you may see others commit uncivil acts while you are a bystander. In this kind of situation, the ability to make change is in your hands; step up and help end the uncivil behavior.

It is important to understand that people come to America from all over the world, some for vacation or school, who end up living here permanently; others are born here to parents who recently immigrated, while still others have many generations of family born and raised in America. If America is portrayed as a country that strives for people from all over the world to

42 come and live the American Dream, then those seeking that dream should not be punished for doing so. Everyone has the ability to create the American Dream of their own, and it is the nation’s tradition and duty to grant them the opportunity to work toward that right.

The younger generations in America are at a pivotal point in history because the future of this issue relies on them. For decades America has strived to reach equality on all levels, but has continued to fall short, discriminating and stigmatizing against those who do not fit the tyrannizing image. It is crucial that the incivility surrounding immigration is put to an end for the prosperity of the country. Even though they faced discrimination, past generations of immigrants have made America what it is today. Immigrants will continue to come to America in the future, and each person in the country should welcome them and allow them to work toward their own American Dream. If more people try to help immigrants reach the American Dream, and the emphasis on forcing people to conform to every aspect of the tyrannizing image is diminished, there may be less incivility associated with immigrants and more civility at the heart of our culture.

Discussion Questions 1. What are the implications of conceiving the United States as a melting pot or a salad bowl? Is there a need to decide between the two and confine our understanding of America to one? Why? 2. How do you define the American Dream? How might civil interactions between American citizens and new immigrants improve everyone’s ability to reach the American Dream?

3. What types of uncivil actions towards immigrants do you feel are most harmful to immigrants? To our society? Why? How can we discourage such actions?

43

1

“Dictionary Civility,” (accessed February 12, 2014). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civility+?s=t.

Sullivan, Dale. Beyond Discourse Communities: Orthodoxies and the Rhetoric of Sectarianism. Taylor and Francis, 1999. JSTOR (accessed March 6, 2014). http://www.jstor.org/stable/466095.

3 “Dictionary Melting Pot,” (accessed February 12, 2014). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/melting+pot+?s=t.

4 “Wikipedia Salad Bowl Cultural Idea,” (accessed February 12, 2014). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_(cultural_idea).

5 Beasley, Vanessa. Who Belongs in America?;Presidents, Rhetoric, and Immigration. Texas A&M University Press.

2006. EBSCOhost (accessed February 5, 2014). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222276&db=nlebk&AN= 514603&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

6 D’Emillio, John. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. University of Chicago Press. 1988. Print 7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Eckard, E. Woodrow. “Anti-Irish Job Discrimination Circa 1880.” Social Science History 34, no. 4 (Winter 2010):407-443. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 7, 2014). http://search.ebscohost.com.ripon.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222276 &db=a9h&AN=55576631&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

10 Ibid. 410.

11 Cullen, Jim. The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea That Shaped a Nation. Oxford University Press.

2003. EBSCOhost (accessed February 5, 2014). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222276&db=nlebk&AN= 129263&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_105.

12 Ibid.

2

44

45 Superior Civility: Jackie Robinson Taylor Smith7 1947 was the year everything changed in America’s Pastime: baseball. The game of baseball, like the rest of the nation, was extremely segregated at this time. That was until Branch Rickey, a white manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, approached an African-American, Jackie Robinson, with an offer to further his baseball career through Major League Baseball, which was an all-white league at the time. The signing of Jackie Robinson was controversial. The AfricanAmerican community as a whole was happy with the breakthrough of a Negro athlete in the MLB, whereas whites were split in their reactions.1 Those who were opposed to Robinson’s entrance into the league expressed outrage, both while in attendance at games and in the news.

However, given the societal norms of the nation in 1947, such acts of public incivility were not given the amount of negative attention that they would be given today.

How we define civility today may be similar to the 1940s, but the tolerance for acts that are seen to be uncivil has changed drastically. Jackie Robinson, being the first African-American athlete to break into baseball, caused controversy that led to many uncivil acts by today’s standards. Robinson, himself, however, showed great civility; by rhetorically enacting civility he was able to challenge stereotypes and fight through the adversity of discrimination in the era of the Jim Crow Laws.

The “Right Guy” To Challenge Jim Crow It was extremely important that in a time of an all-white league and Jim Crow Laws, the “right” player was chosen to break the color barrier in the MLB. The United States in the 1940s was segregated: to some, the integration of baseball was believed to be a foundation for the Taylor Smith is a Communication major from Madison, WI. Taylor is very interested in sports and would love to become a sports broadcaster in the future. Upon graduation, he plans to pursue a career in sports broadcasting or marketing and sales.

46 entire civil rights movement that followed.2 The movement was centered on overturning the Jim Crow Laws, a series of laws that ensured social inequality and gave whites permission to treat African-Americans as unequal.3 For decades the Jim Crow laws had a major impact on the nation, segregating African-Americans and denying them full participation in society. It is this context that made the breakthrough of Jackie Robinson so significant, not simply because it was memorable, but because his break-through in sports set a standard for others to break down the barriers of segregation in other areas of society.

Early Showing of Civility Jackie Robinson was faced with a lot of adversity at an early age, living in Pasadena, California. According to Rachel Robinson, Jackie’s wife and co-founder of the Jackie Robinson Foundation, “Jackie had grown up with much worse discrimination and humiliation than he faced in his early career in the MLB.”4 He managed to make it through this discrimination and persevere to become the first athlete to receive a varsity letter in four sports at UCLA.5 “While at UCLA there was not much discrimination within his teams, however when they would travel to play southern schools it was a different story,” stated Rachel Robinson.6 This may have played an important role in Jackie Robinson becoming the strong-spirited man that he was when he broke the color barrier in baseball. Robinson also gained a tough edge to himself by being a part of the United States Army for two years before continuing on his journey to play in the MLB. Robinson showed superior civility - the notion of being polite, disciplined, and courteous - all through his life.

By being extremely civil, Robinson was able to successfully overcome adversity. He not only broke the color barrier in baseball, but he paved the way for more African Americans to break into the league by his use of rhetorical enactment. Rhetorical enactment occurs when a

47 person is the argument; in this case Robinson demonstrated his capability to perform in a way that was doubted by society. Robinson’s actions showed equality between African Americans and whites in athletics. In the process, by showing his superior civility when faced with extreme rudeness, the incivility of his opponents was exposed, and people began to judge the unfair actions towards him rather than his skin color.

MLB at the time of Robinson’s Entrance At the time of Jackie Robinson’s entrance into the MLB the nation abided by the Jim Crow Laws. The Jim Crow Laws gave whites the right to see and treat African Americans as inferior. This, of course, translated straight to baseball. Robinson was discriminated against on a daily basis and his family received numerous death threats from strangers, according to Rachel Robinson.7 The discriminatory acts did not end with the death threats: a majority of Robinson’s own teammates were against him joining the team at the time. Some gave him the cold shoulder and refused to interact with him, while some actually organized and signed a petition to get him revoked from the team.8 Because of Robinson’s strong character, he was able to get past these uncivil acts and continue playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers, despite the opposition of his teammates. Robinson enacted a high level of sportsmanship that his teammates failed to meet, and, in doing so, proved himself to be worthy both on and off the field. Through this, he truly broke the color barrier. It is unfair that one person had to withstand so much adversity and prejudice based on false stereotypes; however, because Robinson was able to withstand and succeed, generations of African-American athletes have been able to play the game of baseball based purely on their talents and not their race.

The numerous incidents that Robinson encountered while on the Brooklyn Dodgers can be seen as uncivil in both society and baseball today. However, the image that many people

48 today look back on as a sign of civility is that of Pee Wee Reese, a teammate of Robinson’s, putting his arm around Robinson before a game so the whole crowd could see that Reese supported him, regardless of his race. This iconic image was a turning point in baseball because it showed acceptance and support of an African-American athlete on a professional team at a time when this was rare.

MLB and Civility Today According to current New York Yankee’s owner Brain Cashman, “winning with class and dignity and respect for opponents is civility.”9 Baseball, often referred to as America’s Pastime, is a sport that has grown with the nation and has a different outlook on civility now than it did in the 1940s when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. Today, in baseball and almost all sports, if any player is discriminated against, there is an abundance of support towards that player. With the race issue being less of a problem in society and athletics than it was in the past, the main discriminatory factor in sports today is toward individuals who come out as gay. The media immediately initiates discussion about these athletes, drawing attention to them. However, support from athletes across the nation tends to follow this news with a form of acceptance.

Recently, a college football player, Michael Sam, came out just months before the NFL draft.

While the media discussed Sam and his draft status, the support from NFL players and coaches was overwhelming. Green Bay Packers General Manager, Ted Thompson, made a statement regarding Michael Sam, saying, “The Packers have plenty of room for a good teammate and a productive player.”10 Thompson provided exemplary civility by noticing the excellence of a player and not showing concern for the race or sexual preference of the athlete.

While civility is shown within many organizations like the Packers in the NFL, some teams do still have issues regarding civility. During the 2013 football season, the Miami

49 Dolphins chose to indefinitely suspend one of their players, Richie Incognito, for bullying a teammate.11 When Incognito was suspended from the team, a statement was released by the Miami Dolphins stating that, "we believe in maintaining a culture of respect for one another and as a result we believe this decision is in the best interest of the organization at this time."12 Issues regarding civility within sports are still a problem in America, but actions are being taken to punish those who commit acts of incivility.

In the MLB, to prevent uncivil acts, a set of policies have been developed that state, "no athlete -- professional or amateur -- should have to sit on the sidelines or hide out of fear of being mistreated because of their sexual orientation.�13 The MLB strongly takes issue with discrimination and demands civility and sportsmanship from the athletes both inside and outside of the organization. An act of incivility in the game of baseball today would be any act that discriminates against another person or displays a lack of respect for a fellow athlete or for the game itself.

Comparing Civility: 1947-2014 By looking back at how the baseball community treated Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, it is evident that what it takes to show civility has changed along with societal standards. Discriminating against a person because of their race or even their gender was once seen as a civil act because of the laws in place at the time. In the present time, if one were to discriminate against another person for their race, major consequences such as fines and suspensions in the game of baseball would follow. As America has grown as a nation, sports, especially baseball, have followed suit in protecting players from discrimination and acts of incivility.

50 As well as enhancing rules regarding civility in baseball, the MLB celebrates Jackie Robinson for the man he was and the strength it took for him to make it through his struggle to break the color barrier. Robinson broke into the league with the mindset that he would not fight back.14 He was not only playing for himself; he was playing for the many other African American athletes who he knew deserved a chance to play professional baseball.15 42, the number that Jackie Robinson wore for the Brooklyn Dodgers, is now retired by every team in the MLB and is honored when every player in the league wears the number 42 on April 15th, Jackie Robinson Day. Conclusion What was considered civil in the 1940s is far removed from what is now considered civil in the 2000s. If people from the 1940s were able to look into the future and see the way AfricanAmericans are treated today in baseball, they would see it as senseless, just as many Americans now see the way Robinson was treated in the 1940s to be insulting and discriminatory. Civility is a complicated concept that deals with politeness and morally good actions based on the laws and views of the nation. Today, being accepting of all athletes, no matter their race, is demanded.

Although there are still acts of incivility taking place in society and sports, there has been great progress made since the time of Jackie Robinson’s entrance to Major League Baseball.

51 Discussion Questions 1. What do you view as civil and uncivil behavior between athletes and other athletes?

Coaches and athletes? Fans and athletes?

2. What are your reactions to how civility has changed overtime in sports? Has it actually changed? If not, why do you believe it has not changed?

3. What are some examples of incivility that take place in sports today? Why are these important issues to discuss?

1

Wormser, Richard. "The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow." PBS.org. http://www.xklsv.org/viewwiki.php?title=AfricanAmerican (accessed February 26, 2014).

2 Rubinstein, William. "Jackie Robinson and the Integration of Major League Baseball." History Today. http://www.historytoday.com/william-rubinstein/jackie-robinson-and-integration-major-league-baseball (accessed February 26, 2014).

3 "Jim Crow Laws - The Integration of Baseball: The Challenge of Jackie Robinson." The Integration of Baseball: The Challenge Of Jackie Robinson. http://baseballjackierobinson.weebly.com/jim-crow-laws.html (accessed February 26, 2014).

4 "Interview with Rachel Robinson." Scholastic Teachers. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/interviewrachel-robinson (accessed February 24, 2014).

5 The Jackie Robinson Foundation. "The Jackie Robinson Foundation." The Jackie Robinson Foundation. http://www.jackierobinson.org/about/jackie.php (accessed February 26, 2014).

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 "1947 The Arrival of Jackie Robinson." ThisGreatGame.com. http://www.thisgreatgame.com/1947-baseballhistory.html (accessed February 26, 2014).

9 Mckelvie, Samantha. "Brian Cashman Talks Civility in Baseball at Ferguson." It's Relevant. http://stamford.itsrelevant.com/content/16595/Brian-Cashman-Talks-Civility-in-Baseball-at-Ferguson (accessed February 26, 2014).

10 Demovsky, Rob. "Packers GM Shrugs at Michael Sam hoopla."

ESPN.http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/117999/thompson-on-sam-not-much-reaction (accessed February 25, 2014).

11 USA TODAY Sports. "Timeline of Dolphins' alleged bullying saga between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/11/07/richie-incognito-jonathan-martinbullying-miami-dolphins/3466755/ (accessed February 24, 2014).

12 Ibid.

13 Shapiro, Lila. "Homophobia And Baseball: Fans React To MLB's Plan To Combat Discrimination." The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/homophobia-baseball_n_3607620.html (accessed February 26, 2014).

14 IMDb. "42 Quotes." IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453562/quotes (accessed February 26, 2014).

15 "Interview with Rachel Robinson."

52

53 Nonverbal Language in Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates Devin Seaholm8 Presidential and vice presidential debates are events which will continue to make history for years to come in the United States. During presidential elections that occur every four years in our country, the presidential and vice presidential debates are arguably the most important factors of a campaign. Debates allow citizens across the country to see where the candidates stand on political issues, and which candidate they agree with the most. For some, debates are an ideal way to watch the candidates attack each other or make fools out of themselves. Instances of civility and incivility can clearly be seen in the debates. Many people do not realize that civility and incivility can be expressed without talking. This essay will focus on the nonverbal language of presidential debates. Nonverbal communication is expressed through the term interpersonal communication, which can be defined as communication through behavioral traits or body language in a nonverbal fashion. The 1992, 2000, and 2008 presidential and vice presidential debates will be analyzed with a focus on how civility is not just expressed through words, but also through nonverbal communication as well.

Physical Rudeness Nonverbal language has many traits and can be viewed in different ways. It is ambiguous and not always intentional, because “it is sending and receiving messages in a variety of ways without the use of verbal codes (words).�1 The communication behaviors in this section are labeled as physical rudeness because presidential debates in the past have shown nonverbal physical rudeness that has been performed by a few of the candidates in these elections.

Devin Seaholm is from New London, WI, majoring in Communication. He hopes to pursue a career in broadcasting.

54 The first example of this can be found in the “town hall” debate of the 1992 presidential election between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The “town hall” debate is the second debate of every recent election, where members of the audience can ask candidates questions on issues happening across the country. George H. W. Bush displayed physical rudeness during this debate. Just over the mid-way point of the debate, Bush was asked a question by a member of the audience. When he stood up from his chair he looked at his watch for a second or two, ignoring the question, and this was seen as a sign of physical rudeness.2 It seemed as though Bush was waiting for the debate to be over or he wanted to leave the floor. He continued to perform what some felt were rude nonverbal actions three more times throughout the remainder of the debate.

It is unclear why Bush did this; it could have been a behavioral habit, but it was seen as rude and as an act of incivility due to the reactions by the audience and media afterwards.

A major discussion took place in the media about a physical rudeness performance in the 2000 presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore. During one of the closest elections in American history, Al Gore may have lost the race due to the incivility of his nonverbal actions.3 An important piece of information to note is that during this election, split screen television had already been created and was used in the debate.4 In the first presidential debate of the 2000 election, Gore displayed a physical rudeness that viewers thought was annoying. Numerous times throughout the debate, Gore would sigh while Bush was discussing an issue or policy at hand. Every time he would sigh, the camera was always focused on Gore, due to the split screen being in place.5 With split screen shots, Gore was seen making obnoxious facial expressions while he sighed. His sighs were actually quite comical because it seemed as if he was doing the sighs on purpose, raising the question of if Gore was being a bit over-dramatic with all of the sighs. The sighs alone were rude enough, but the faces that Gore made along with

55 the sighs made him look even worse on television. Not only was the attention on his nonverbal physical rudeness, but the media focused on Gore’s behavior more than on the actual debate itself.6 It was quite unclear as to why Gore performed these nonverbal actions; however, he did speak out in an interview after a debate, explaining that he needed to improve his act during debates.7 No one raised the question of whether or not his acts during the debate were on purpose or not.

The most recent presidential election was in 2012 between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. However, the main controversy during this election period was physical rudeness that took place in the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. The physical rudeness in the vice presidential debate was performed by current vice president, Joe Biden.

Biden’s rudeness was comical in a way like Al Gore’s was. Biden made significant amounts of facial expressions throughout the entire debate while Ryan was talking. When watching the debate, it was quite noticeable that Biden was neither fond of, nor agreed with, what Ryan was saying, due to the facial expressions that he was making. Biden consistently made rude smiles or smirks and also performed interesting facial gestures while Ryan was talking. The most noticeable sign of physical rudeness in the debate was Biden laughing obnoxiously while Ryan was speaking. His laughs were interruptive, which at some moments forced Ryan to stop talking altogether. Every now and then, Biden would interrupt and start speaking when it was Ryan’s time to talk.8 Many people across the nation were upset and thought Biden was overbearingly rude towards Ryan through the entirety of the debate. It may have seemed uncivil and rude, and maybe it was done on purpose or perhaps not, but it does not appear to have affected Obama at all because he was re-elected for a second term.

56 Proxemics Everybody enjoys their personal, public, or private space in everyday life. People tend to get uncomfortable when somebody gets too close to them while they are talking to another person. This is an example of proxemics, another nonverbal language trait. Proxemics can be defined as, “when somebody violates your public or personal space.”9 A common example of this would be when somebody approaches another person and says, “Hey, please back off, you are in my space.” People get uncomfortable when this happens to them. This may be due to claustrophobia (fear of small, tight spaces) or just being uncomfortable with a person who is too close in general. Al Gore performed a rude display of proxemics in the “town hall” debate of the 2000 presidential election. During the second debate, Gore made a proxemic move that was considered to have truly hurt his chance to become president.10 While Bush was talking, Gore made the decision to walk over right up next to Bush. He stood next to Bush and stared at him as he talked. Bush held his ground, gave an eerie glance at Gore, nodded, and moved on with what he was talking about.11 Gore violated the proxemics and made himself look like a fool once again. Many people were angry with Gore. Some thought Gore’s actions were done on purpose to appear intimidating, but we do not know for sure, because nobody publicly asked Gore why he did it. To many, it was seen as an act of incivility, and the media made the situation even worse for Gore, because they highlighted his nonverbal actions in their coverage.

Conclusion After looking at these presidential and vice presidential debates in detail, it is clear that nonverbal language can create the perception of incivility, influencing the media and public opinion. Behavior is intentional, and people tend to treat civility as intentional. However, this is not always true with nonverbal language. From Bush checking his watch to Gore violating the

57 proxemics of Bush, it is unclear as to whether or not these nonverbal actions performed were intentional. Maybe it was because not all behavior is acted upon intentionally. Maybe the nonverbal communication hurt Gore and Bush in their elections, but it did not have an effect on Obama or Biden in the most recent presidential election, since Obama was re-elected. Were the tactics of these performances acts of civility or incivility? No one will ever know the true answer to these questions. All of this was important to look at because it seemed as if they were performances of incivility, but as stated before, we cannot read these former candidates’ minds.

Nonverbal language in presidential debates needs to be looked at more in the future, to see if it actually does have a positive or negative effect on presidential candidates.

Discussion Questions: 1. Do you believe nonverbal actions truly hurt a person’s image, or in this case, a candidate’s position?

2. In what ways do people communicate beyond words in social media? How does online “nonverbal” communication impact our perceptions of others??

3. How might political candidates’ nonverbal communication help us decide if we want to vote for them? Should we as voters ever let their actions speak louder than their words to us??

1

“Non-Verbal Communication Codes.” International Business Relations, accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/NonVerbal.html.

2 “Clinton vs. Bush in 1992 Debate.” Posted by “smotus,” Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE 3 Richard L. Berke and Kevin Sack. “The 2000 Campaign: The Debates; In Debate 2, Microscope Focuses on Gore.” 11 Oct. 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/us/the-2000-campaign-the-debates-in-debate-2microscope-focuses-on-gore.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1 The New York Times, accessed January 29, 2014.

4 Richard L. Berke and Kevin Sack.

58

5

“Presidential Candidates Debate – Bush vs. Gore 2000 10/3/00.” Posted by “Lord Rothschild,” Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpIqItwCHzs 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 “Biden: Laughing, guffawing, wagging, grinning, and cutting of Ryan.” Posted by “Saving America,” Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxUgnNIcH1c 9 Sheppard, Mike. “Proxemics.” July, 1996. Accessed February 25, 2014. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~sheppard/proxemics.htm 10 Richard L. Berke and Kevin Sack.

11 “Al Gore and George Bush Debate 2000.” Posted by “Mary Civiello,” Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH3LXEULJYI

59 Civility in The Colbert Report Tsering Yangchen9 The Colbert Report is an American satirical late night television program which first aired in 2005 on Comedy Central network. In a fall 2012 episode, Stephen Colbert reported the news about the Navy Yard shooting in Washington, D.C. Colbert is dressed professionally, specifically in the style of a news reporter, as he details the massacre at the Navy Yard. The question arises, all the while, “why is the audience laughing about a tragedy?” Is Colbert's “report” civil? Why is he parodying news reporters, the people whom we trust to inform us about current events in America and around the world? People question whether Colbert's “news” should be taken seriously. Stephen Colbert presents parodies on politics in order for his audience to question how the mainstream news programs frame their stories. But is his approach of satirizing and parodying a civil action?

Functions of Parody In today’s society, when young people hear the word “parody,” they might think of the last YouTube video they watched of random individuals taping themselves singing to wellknown songs like “Wrecking Ball” or “Thrift Shop.” They watch these parodies for entertainment or even to admire strangers' talent of making new lyrics that mock the original versions of songs. Theoretical critic Simon Dentith studies parody and says it has varying degrees of mockery or humor.1 For some, parodies are seen as a form of ridicule, while others see parody as the highest form of flattery. The popular show “Saturday Night Live” is famous for parodies; SNL producers regularly bring in well-known artists and movie stars to ridicule themselves or other celebrities, as well as the mainstream news. It may be that parodying an Tsering Yangchen is a Communication major with an Anthropology minor. She hopes to work for the Human Rights Watch as a reporter or to become a Public Relations Specialist for a nonprofit organization.

60 event like a terrorist attack or making fun of a news anchor is distasteful to some, but the coverage engages the audience. Parodies call audiences’ attention to the issue that is being mocked and challenge them to ask questions about controversial subjects.

History of Parody Parody has been around since the Ancient Greek period, and, since then, there have been many different characteristics of parody. In the 4th century BCE, the philosopher Aristotle termed parodia as a comic imitation and transformation of an epic verse work; however, later the term was extended to cover forms of comic quotation or imitation in literature.2 The publication of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes and Sterne’s Tristram Shandy represented the original type of parody as both comic and meta-fiction in the 17th and 18th centuries.

In the 19th century, satires and parody cartoon images of President Abraham Lincoln were created. There were so many, in fact, that today there is a website dedicated to all the cartoons that were drawn of Lincoln in history. The cartoons are categorized by people in the images, topic interest, and symbols. These cartoons have hidden messages that are revealed by careful study.

A well-known cartoon image from 1863 is “Columbia Confronts the President.” The cartoon references how Lincoln had not resolved the Civil War by that time and further deepens a rumor of him joking while visiting the Antietam battlefield. Overall, the cartoon conveys the message that fighting the war is not worth it and Lincoln has to step up and take action. In 1864, the political cartoon “Columbia Demands her Children” was another satire of Lincoln on the same issue. In the cartoon, Mrs. Columbia demands: “Mr. LINCOLN, give me back my 500,000 sons!!!” President Lincoln, unfazed, replies: “Well the fact is-by the way that reminds me of a STORY!!!” 3 Mrs. Columbia is wearing a liberty cap and a skirt made of an American flag. She

61 is meant to represent the United States. At Lincoln’s feet lies the proclamation that calls for more troops to fight in the Civil War. This cartoon parodies Lincoln's actions by focusing on the sense of frustration that many Northerners felt about the cost of the war in human lives. The cartoon makes a controversial statement in a concise, effective and humorous way. Mrs. Columbia confronts Lincoln, who is portrayed as a messy and sloppy President sitting at his desk with one leg carelessly draped over a chair. The cartoonist can easily target Lincoln because of his height and other physical characteristics that gave him a tall and lanky form.4 Such cartoon parodies have long been a way for citizens to critique and question those in power.

Satire in Parodies Today Satire is humor, exaggeration, or ridicule intended to improve humanity by criticism.

Most of the time, satire is focused on something or someone to expose alleged stupidity and shortcomings. There have been many cartoons of President Barack Obama, but during the 2008 election, there came a surge of satirical cartoons and parodies based on his name and his skin color. Most of the cartoons were produced by Obama's critics, but one used their patterns satirically to attack the critics themselves. The July 21, 2008 cover of The New Yorker featured a cartoon of Obama depicted in stereotypical Muslim/Arabic attire, and his wife, Michelle Obama, as a gun-toting terrorist. Both are shown in the Oval Office giving each other a fist bump; behind them, a framed picture of the terrorist Osama Bin Laden hangs above a fireplace where the American flag is burning. There were many reactions from people when the cartoon was published. Those who supported Obama for the presidential election were shocked and angry.

Others found the cartoon funny, even though they were Obama fans. Dan Chmielewski, from Liberal Orange County, said, “It’s really a hat tip to the morons who run Fox News who have suggested a number of times Obama is Muslim and that he and his wife exchanged a terrorist fist

62 bump. It's a funny cover.”5 People like Chmielweski “get” the image. It is an image intended to satirize right-wing attackers of Obama who portray him and his wife as flag-burning terrorists.

The cover is trying to pinpoint that the thought of the Obamas as terrorists and enemies of the U.S. is ridiculous. The satire targets people who believed Obama was a terrorist; it does not target Obama himself.

The Colbert Report Today, parodies and satires are prevalent in the media. Comedy Central's satirical late night television program, The Colbert Report, comments on politics and media. Colbert describes the character he plays as a “well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-class idiot.”6 He once said, "Anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you.”7 Colbert does so by parodying traditional news broadcasts. Most of his shows consist of him satirizing conservative right-wing political programs like Fox News and commentaries from The O’Reilly Factor.

The Navy Yard Shooting Case and Gun Violence On the morning of September 16, 2013, 13 people were killed and 14 were injured at the Washington Navy Yard. Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old decorated Navy veteran, went on a murderous rampage by opening fire at crowds of people with his AR-15 rifle and a shotgun. He had a government contractor access card that gained him entry into the heavily-guarded compound. One of the workers pulled a fire alarm as a warning for everyone to exit the building.

An hour later, Alexis was shot by armed SWAT team members.8 This tragedy caused eight Washington public schools to go on lock down for that day and air traffic at Reagan National Airport to be suspended for a couple of hours. Everyone was looking for answers. What led this

63 former Navy Reservist to act this violently towards innocent civilians? News sources claimed that his violent history and his addiction to violent video games led to the Navy Yard shooting.

Colbert on Fox News Coverage of Navy Yard Shooting In The Colbert Report episode following the shooting, Colbert starts off by saluting DC’s first responders who came to the rescue at the Navy Yard and says he is praying for the families and the victims who were there when the shooting occurred.9 Colbert shows that he is serious about the shooting so audiences know that he is recognizing the tragedy. Colbert then states that he wants to know what the problem is and why it happened. Right off the bat, Colbert cuts to a clip of a C-SPAN anchor who brings in a Democratic representative blaming the gun as the problem. Colbert laughs and sarcastically says, “Guns? I’m not talking about guns! We didn’t do anything about guns after Sandy Hook. Guns? You are adorable!”10 Colbert is informing the audience that the government did not take any action on gun control after a shooting that had occurred in an elementary school the year before. He is suggesting that talking about gun control is ridiculous because, if such actions had been taken in the first place, the Navy Yard incident might not have happened.

Colbert continues on saying, “We all know what the real problem is….” and shows a Fox News interview with Steven Rogers, a retired Senior Naval Intelligence Officer, who is talking about a military I.D. card that Alexis used to enter the building.11 An anchor in the news says, “Maybe too many people have these cards.” Colbert’s studio audience laughs and Colbert announces, “Think about it! He had access to a military I.D. card. If he didn’t have that, we wouldn’t be talking about a tragedy in a Navy Yard, we would be talking about a tragedy in a less-secure area like a park or a Denny’s.”12 Colbert satirizes Fox News and ridicules the comment made by the anchor. Colbert sternly asks again, “But what’s the answer?”13 He shows

64 four different television personnel from Fox News who are having conversations about doing background checks and how the government is not doing enough of them. Colbert has a tired look on his face and says, “Yes! How many times do conservatives need to say it? We need more background checks!”14 When Colbert says this, he is satirizing the conservatives and pointing them out as hypocrites because they were the ones who originally proposed to forgo background checks for those buying weapons.15 Lastly, Colbert shows clips of Fox News making political statements about monitoring video game purchases and how frequently people play violent video games involving guns.

Colbert nods as if he agrees with what Gretchen Carlson, the Fox News reporter, says on the case and adds, “Gretchen is right. The United States should monitor who is playing video games and how much. Maybe a National Game Registry?”16 This is ironic because conservatives were against having a national gun registry, and Colbert plays on this concept. He also pokes fun at the very idea of monitoring people playing video games. He then sarcastically says he agrees with Gretchen because the new “Madden 25” game has been released and all of a sudden there is a rush of football violence on television.

Humor Leads to Awareness The Colbert Report is not a news program; rather, it is a satirical parody of news that calls attention to specific issues. Some might think that Colbert engages in negative criticism that will leave audiences cynical. Colbert refers to real events and real people, but that does not mean his own reports and his comments are real news. Humor in The Colbert Report can sometimes be dismissive and silencing for audiences who do not understand Colbert’s work. In his eyes, humor draws attention to an issue. Author Sophia McClennen in America According to Colbert says,

65 “Colbert doesn’t envision his work as replacement for the news, but as a supplement or satirical addition, that can push conversations about current events into a more critical realm.”17 Parody and satire have shifted their framework from cartoons in newspapers to mainstream television and now the Internet. The Internet allows linkages to wider networks of information and conversation.18 Colbert shows that it is possible to challenge the misinformation and the spectacle of mainstream news through alternative media. The problem comes in when people take it in as real news, but Colbert informs his fans repeatedly that this is not his objective. In an interview with IGN Entertainment, Colbert says, “I wish people would watch the real news before they watch our show, because we have two games. Our game is we make fun of the news-makers, but we also make fun of the news style. They’re missing half of our joke if they don’t keep up with the day-to-day changes of mass media news.”19 Colbert is showing America the various impediments to civic deliberation in today’s society. America will either rise up and become activists after watching The Colbert Report or they will deem his personality and the show as inappropriate.

Discussion Questions: 1. Where does one draw the line in parodies? Is it “over the line” to parody mass murders, terrorism, or the President of the United States?

2. Colbert’s goal for fans watching his show is to be proactive and challenge the media outlets and their style. Would you rise up to his expectations? Why or why not?

3. To what extent do you believe what the news tells you? Do you think there is a bias in the media, as Colbert’s parodies suggest? What responsibilities should citizens have in exposing themselves to media representing various perspectives?

66

Simon Dentith, Parody, (New York: Routledge, 2000), 193.

Dentith 280.

3 Library of Congress, "Columbia Demands Her Children!" Last modified 2014. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008661676/.

4 Charley Norkus, "Wernerian view of "Columbia Demands Her Children!"," Teaching Digital History (blog), September 16, 2009, http://teachingdigitalhistory.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wernerian-viewof-columbia.

5 Chmielewski, Dan. Liberal OC: Challenging Orange County’s Right-Wing Noise Machine, "New Yorker Cover Offends Obama Camp." Last modified July 14, 2003. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/07/14/new-yorker-cover-offends-obama-camp/.

6 Peyser, Marc. "The Truthiness Teller." Newsweek Entertainment, February 13, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060425101629/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182033/site/newsweek/ (accessed February 12, 2014).

7 Rabin, Nathan. The A.V. Club, "Stephen Colbert." Last modified January 25, 2006. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.avclub.com/article/stephen-colbert-13970.

8 S.A. Miller, Larry Celona, and Kate Sheehy, "DC Massacre Gunman Silently Stalked Victims," New York Post(2013), http://nypost.com/2013/09/16/dc-cops-fbi-probe-shooting-at-washington-navy-yard/ (accessed February 12, 2014).

9 Colbert, Stephen, "Navy Yard Shooting & Gun Violence," The Colbert Report, Web, http://www.colbertnation.com/the-Colbert-report-videos/429165/September-18-2013/navy-yard-shooting--gun-violence-causes.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Mike Lillis, "Texas Senator Ted Cruz Sells Out on Gun Control," Social Security Institute, http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/news/recent-news/Texas-senator-ted-cruz-sells-out-on-gun-control (accessed February 12, 2014).

16 Ibid.

17 Sophia McClennen, America According to Colbert (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 99.

18 McClennen 172.

19 McClennen 99.

1 2

67 The Range of Civility in American Protest Eric Radke10 Since Colonial times, protests have made their mark on America's history. They have become a part of the American culture as a way to speak out against issues that Americans find unsuitable for their way of life. Protests are one way Americans bring to life the ideal of freedom of speech, and are used to object to what is happening in the political world, to bring issues up to people in power, and for people to speak their minds. Whatever their purpose, protests are American.

In early 2011, protesters gathered around the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin to protest a bill proposed by Governor Scott Walker. Walker stated that the bill was "necessary to fix the state's $3.6 billion deficit."1 One of the ways the bill did this was by limiting collective bargaining rights. The protesters felt the bill Walker proposed was taking away their rights as workers and was an attempt to restrict unions. The protests that surrounded the bill in Madison and across the state of Wisconsin ranged in civility. Although it is the civic duty of Americans to speak up when they feel their liberties are being threatened, not all protests are civil.

Historical Protests: Civil and Uncivil By looking at America's history, one can determine what is and what is not a civil protest by contrasting different protests. One of the better known uncivil protests was the Boston Tea Party, which served as a catalyst for the American Revolutionary War. The colonists at the time felt that the Tea Act passed by the British Parliament was unjust. Prior to the Boston Tea Party, when boats arrived transporting tea, colonists in New York and Philadelphia "refused to let the

Eric Radke is a Communication major from Monroe, Wisconsin. After college, he plans to pursue a career in business related to one of his passions: music, motorcycles, and construction.

68 boats land."2 On, or just before, the date of November 29, 1773, the largest shipment of tea from England arrived in the Boston harbor. The royal governor in Boston was not going to let the colonists stop the shipment of tea from being unloaded, nor was he going to let the ship be sent back to England like others had been. Knowing this, the colonists in Boston stirred to action and what has become known as the Boston Tea Party occurred.

During the Boston Tea Party "almost 100,000 pounds of teas" were dumped from the boats into the harbor, resulting in the destruction of property worth almost "$1 million in today's money."3 Although the protesters made their point to the British government, the action was still seen as uncivil because the colonists caused damage to goods and property of the British government. Yet, the point the colonists made with the Boston Tea Party would not have had the same impact on the British government if the protest had stayed civil.

History shows that uncivil protests can be effective, but so can civil protests. Another well-known example from history on the civil side is the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This civil protest was started by Rosa Parks, who sat in the fifth row of a bus on her way home from work "as a department store seamstress."4 After refusing to move to the back of the bus to make room for white passengers, Parks was arrested and given a $10 fine. A young minister at the time by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. heard about what happened to Rosa Parks. With his colleague Ralph Abernathy, King organized a boycott of the Montgomery buses. On December 5, 1955, the boycott went into effect. They urged African Americans in the Montgomery area to use any means of transportation for any purpose, other than the buses. King and Abernathy hoped for at least a fifty-percent support rate among African-Americans; to their surprise, "99 percent of the city's African Americans refused to ride the buses."5 After almost a year of

69 boycotting, on November 23, 1956, the Supreme Court declared that segregated busing was unconstitutional.

Due to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the "bus company suffered thousands of dollars in lost revenue."6 This historical protest is an example of being both civil and effective. It was civil because the boycott did not damage or cause harm to anyone at whom it was directed. Although the bus company suffered a loss in revenue, there was no physical damage done to property or company goods. It was also effective because it ended segregated seating on the buses.

Incivility Towards Walker and Supporters On February 15, 2011 Governor Scott Walker introduced Wisconsin Act 10, otherwise known as the Scott Walker Budget Repair Bill. A summary of the bill from the Wisconsin state government reads as follows: The bills would: (a) repeal the state's collective bargaining laws for certain public employees (excluding negotiation of limited wage increases); (b) require certain state and local public employees to pay for a portion of retirement contributions and health insurance premium costs; (c) increase funding for medical assistance benefits and Department of Corrections; (d) restructure the state's debt; and (e) make changes to the state medical assistance program.7

The most controversial parts of the bill were that it increased pension contributions for employees who are a part of the Wisconsin Retirement System, increased government employees’ health insurance contributions, and limited bargaining rights for employees.

After proposing Wisconsin Act 10, Walker not only faced protests in Madison, but also threats against his life and his family's lives. During the time the bill was up for discussion in the Wisconsin government, a letter was addressed to Scott Walker's wife, Tonette Walker. The letter not only threatened Scott's life, but also the well being of their two sons. Addressed to Tonette, the letter read:

70 HI TONETTE, Has Wisconsin ever had a governor assassinated? Scott's heading that way. Or maybe one of your sons getting killed would hurt him more. I want him to feel the pain. I already follow them when they went to school in Wauwatosa, so it won't be too hard to find them in Mad. Town. Big change from that house by [BLANK] Ave. to what you got now. Just let him know that it's not right to [EXPLETIVE] over all those people. Or may I could find one of the Tarantinos [Tonette's parents] back here.

Lots of choices for me. 8

The letter not only threatened the immediate Walker family, but also the parents of Tonette Walker. At the time the letter was sent to the state’s first lady, Scott Walker had already received threats against his own life. He had not lost focus with pushing Wisconsin Act 10 forward when his life was threatened, but the letter addressed to his wife hit home. Walker stated, "'They weren't going after me, they were going after my family,'" in the letter and that the letter had "ticked him off."9 This letter to Tonette Walker was clearly an act of incivility. It openly stated that Scott was on his way to being assassinated and that the writer should kill Scott and Tonette's sons. The writer stated he wanted Scott to feel as much pain as could possibly be inflicted emotionally.

Although no violence was actually committed against Scott Walker or his family by this letter, it is still an act of incivility because it threatened extreme violence.

Scott Walker and his family were not the only people to receive death threats during the time Wisconsin Act 10 was being discussed. Republicans from all over Wisconsin who supported the bill received an email threat that stated, "Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks."10 The email also went into detail about how killing the senators would not be a strong enough message, so the sender and accomplices had also "built several bombs"11 that they alleged to have distributed in places they knew the senators visited on a frequent basis. Places like their

71 cars, houses, and the capitol were mentioned in the email as places they visited frequently. Along with this email, Senator Dan Kapanke of La Crosse was sent a second threat. This threat said Kapanke was going to be hunted down, murdered, and have his "'decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square.'"12 Among the eighteen senators who received the email threat, Kapanke was the only one to receive the second-level threat.

This turn to violent threats against senators who supported Scott Walker is an example of a "last resort" tactic amongst the extremists in the Scott Walker protests. The last resort occurs when protesters "claim they tried all normal, peaceful, and legal means . . . and, only after remarkable patience and restraint, did they turn to violence as a last resort."13 In the email, the writer stated "we have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer."14 Not only is this email an example of a last resort, but it is also another example of incivility. Again, this person is threatening the lives of people who are doing their jobs. The difference between this email and the letter sent to Tonette Walker is that the email includes evidence that it was issued as a statement of last resort.

The writer(s) claimed they believed they did everything they could to be civil and protest the bill, but after little to no gains they resorted to threats of violence. When an act of violence occurs, whether it be verbal or physical, a protest becomes uncivil. Thus, the last resort tactic can be seen as a red flag that civility is about to be corrupted.

Civility Towards Walker Not all protests against Scott Walker and Wisconsin Act 10 were uncivil. Thousands of people participated in acts of civil protest in Madison, Wisconsin during the month of February 2011. Many of the protesters were union supporters or members of unions in Wisconsin. On Tuesday, February 14, 2011, "more than 12,000 protesters gathered in two separate rallies

72 outside the Capitol"15 carrying signs protesting the bill and the governor himself. During the day, a group of fire fighters marched through the capitol to support the protesters. Although most fire fighters, police officers, and state troopers were exempt from the bill, the group of fire fighters "showed up to support the other union members."16 Just fourteen days later, the rally grew from 12,000 to in "excess of 70,000"17 protesters. During these rallies in the state capitol, Madison police spokesman Joel DeSpain stated the police forces in the capitol "'had no problems'" while they patroled to keep the community and the capitol building "'safe for democracy.'"18 The peaceful protests continued until Sunday, February 27, 2011, when the police force was to close down the capitol at 4 p.m. Catching wind of this, protesters in the capitol issued non-violent training sessions the night before. Not only did protesters hold these training sessions, but they also passed out instructions for those who planned on peacefully refusing to leave. One of the common ways to peacefully refuse to leave the capitol building was for protesters to let their bodies fall limp and be carried out by law enforcers. A female protester addressed the crowded building the night before the capitol was to be closed saying, "Don't fight with the people who carry us out tomorrow,"19 because the fight was not with the law enforcers, but with Scott Walker and the supporters of the bill.

Like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, most elements of the protests in Madison, Wisconsin were civil. People gathered together to peacefully protest Wisconsin Act 10. According to the Madison police spokesperson, there were no troubles during the protests on February 14 and February 26, 2011. People gathered together to voice their thoughts and feelings about the bill Governor Walker had proposed. Even those not affected by the bill showed up to support their fellow workers as their rights were being stripped away.

73 Conclusion History shows that both civil and uncivil protests can be effective when trying to make a change in the country. When protestors resort to verbal threats of harm or actual physical violence in uncivil protests, "serious ethical, moral, humane and legal questions"20 arise. When a protest occurs, civility lies in the eyes of the onlookers. This is because those who act uncivilly during a protest believe that what they are doing is just and civil because of the situation.

Onlookers to the protest, whether they agree with what is being protested or not, can stay on neutral ground and have a clearer mind about what is civil and uncivil. It is the civic duty of Americans to speak out − even to protest − when they feel that their liberties are at stake, but just because it is their civic duty does not mean that every protest is guaranteed to be civil.

Discussion Questions 1. What are other historical protests that were civil? Others that were uncivil? What made those protests civil and uncivil?

2. What are your opinions on the Scott Walker protest?

3. How might the colonists have protested Scott Walker's bill? How might Rosa Parks have?

Martin Luther King, Jr.?

1

Ramde, Dinesh. "Scott Walker Singing Protests Continue In Wisconsin Capitol," The Huffington Post .Last modified November 24, 2012. Accessed March 8, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/24/scott-walkerprotests_n_2184725.html.

2 Kline, Pamela, and Paul Pavao. "The Boston Tea Party: Why Did It Occur and Who Was Involved?." Accessed March 9, 2014. http://www.revolutionary-war.net/boston-tea-party.html.

3 Ibid.

4 Independence Hall Association, "Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott." Accessed March 9, 2014. http://www.ushistory.org/us/54b.asp.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 "Summary Of Provisions Of 2011 Act 10," accessed February, 24, 2014. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/budget/2011-13-Budget/documents/act32/act%2010.pdf 8 Beck, Glenn. Mercury Radio Arts, "Chilling threats sent to WI Gov. Scott Walker and family." Last modified October 29, 2013. Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/10/29/chilling-threats-sent-to-wigov-scott-walker-and-family/.

74

9

Kittle, M.D. Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, "‘Unintimidated:’ Gov. Scott Walker’s book details death threats during hostile time." Last modified November 20, 2013. Accessed March 10, 2014. http://watchdog.org/116881/walker-unintimidated-union/.

10 Byman, Jon. WTMJ, "Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats." Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html.

11 Ibid.

12 Johnson , Mike, and Jason Stein. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Justice Department investigating death threats against Republican senators, representatives." Last modified March 10, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117738098.html.

13 Charles J. Stewart, Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Persuasion and Social Movements, (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2007), 284.

14 Byman, Jon. WTMJ, "Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats." Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html.

15 Barbour, Clay. Wisconsin State Journal, "Thousands gather at Capitol to protest Walker budget bill." Last modified February 16, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-andpolitics/thousands-gather-at-capitol-to-protest-walker-budget-bill/article_de45ba12-3935-11e0-9b64001cc4c002e0.html.

16 Ibid.

17 Cullen, Sandy, and Patricia Simms. Wisconsin State Journal, "More than 70,000 protesters participate in rally at Capitol." Last modified February 26, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://host.madison.com/news/local/govtand-politics/more-than-protesters-participate-in-rally-at-capitol/article_19c56fb6-41d7-11e0-820b001cc4c03286.html.

18 Ibid.

19 Seely, Ron. Wisconsin State Journal, "Some protesters plan peaceful resistance when Capitol is closed on Sunday." Last modified February 26, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://host.madison.com/news/local/govtand-politics/some-protesters-plan-peaceful-resistance-when-capitol-is-closed-on/article_a3477074-421b-11e0-9128001cc4c002e0.html.

20 Charles J. Stewart, Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Persuasion and Social Movements, (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2007), 276.

75 Discrimination or Incivility?

Jordan Hester11 Conflicts over moral, religious, social, political, and economic values, beliefs, and attitudes have fueled disagreements between members of society for centuries.1 Many of these disagreements have led to the creation of social movements which have advocated the American Dream for all different moral beliefs, sexualities, and races. Then and now, with visions of equality for all, social movements often create visual protests that call into question the incivility behind certain acts. This essay will analyze incivility in social movement rhetoric and challenge if the acts being committed as protests are uncivil or if society discriminates against those doing the act. The Chick-Fil-A “Kiss-In” protest will be examined as a case study.

Defining a Social Movement Social movements are organized efforts by people to raise awareness of a problem in society. They seek to cause changes that “the establishment” and the so-called “powers that be” are unwilling to make. Some social movements are local and work to make small-scale changes, while others are nationwide or even international. There are many types of movements, but innovative social movements, which advocate changing existing social norms and values, will be the focus of this essay.2 Social, political, and religious views have created a perpetual struggle for equality and justice to be achieved for all. Innovative social movements such as the Civil Rights, Women’s Suffrage, and, more recently, Gay Rights movements have been striving to enhance the American dream by changing existing beliefs through the use of social movement rhetoric, campaigns, and visual protests.3

Jordan Hester is graduating with a Communication major and hopes to pursue a career in event planning.

76 Early civil rights activists staged sit-ins to end racial segregation and discrimination. The most famous sit-ins occurred in the 1950s and 1960s and included social movement leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These sit-ins took place in white-only restaurants and often ended with African Americans being arrested, generally in brutal ways. The goal was to show white communities the violence of these issues, in hope that the world would see the morality of the civil rights movement.4 In the earlier stages of the women's suffrage movement, it was common to encounter pickets and suffragist parades, featuring signs asking questions such as, “Mr. President how long must women wait for liberty?� being displayed.5 In 1913, nearly 8,000 activists set out to protest in favor of equal rights for women.6 While this protest for equality took place, opposing activists fought back by assaulting the women who were rallying. This did not stop the fight for equality.

After women won the right to vote, the National Organization for Women created Equal Rights Amendment marches in 1976 to advocate for equality between men and women.7 Like the suffrage protests of the earlier generation, the supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment also drew attacks from those who opposed them.

Since the 1960s another growing movement has worked for gay rights. Before and even since the 1960s, laws were enforced in many areas prohibiting homosexual behavior in public.

Private gay establishments were often ransacked and closed in order to discourage homosexual behaviors as well.8 It was not until June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in New York that homosexuals started speaking in defense of themselves. A group of homosexuals, nauseated at the ongoing discrimination from society and the harassment they received from the police, took a stand which created day-long riots and visual protests. The Stonewall Riots of that time, which

77 have now transformed into and are memorialized by gay pride parades, increased discussions about homosexuality and civil rights, leading to the start of today’s gay rights social movement.9 Visual Protests Social movements engage in many forms of communication, from speeches to using social and mass media. Some social movements create visual protests as a way to draw attention to their cause, in hopes of gaining followers and general public support. A visual protest is one in which efforts are made to create a visual image that captures attention and is likely to be remembered. One of the greatest examples of a visual protest in history is the 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered the famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

While the speech itself is considered one of the most influential in history, the visual elements of the event also made an impact. Dr. King spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to a vast audience, with the Washington Monument towering in the background. Among many visual persuasive factors in the setting, the presence of the statue of Lincoln behind Dr. King called up the emotions of Lincoln’s fight against slavery. “I Have a Dream” would have been a powerful speech no matter where it was given, but the location of the speech added elements of visual persuasion that enhanced the impact of the March on Washington as a protest for the Civil Rights Movement.

Despite the attention captured from the media and public, some visual protests have caused controversy. For example, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has often been attacked for their visual protest tactics. In some cases, PETA members have thrown blood on models at fashion shows for designers’ use of fur. One of the most recent examples of a visual protest that sparked a lot of controversy was the Chick-Fil-A “Kiss-In.” The simple act of public kissing can be a welcoming greeting between old friends or

78 an expression of romantic love. But in the case of the “Kiss-In” the act of public kissing was a visual protest, planned as a strategy to call attention to discrimination against gays. 10 The “Kiss-In” The two sides on the gay rights issue are polarized and often extremely heated. Those against gay rights feel homosexuality should not be acceptable at all, mostly because it was not accepted in the Bible. Those advocating for gay rights preach equality for all sexualities, wanting what is acceptable for a heterosexual couple to be seen as acceptable for a gay couple. Because people hold such different opinions on this issue, homosexual kissing, hand holding, and other public displays of affection can lead to mass controversy in the public eye. Morris and Sloop have come to the conclusion, We notice most heterosexual kisses no more than we do heterosexual handshakes. Although, the meaning of the public kiss is historical and cultural, its rhetorical force, reiterated multiple times each day, materially grounds the assumption that it is a natural reaffirmation of proper gender behavior. By contrast, the sight of two men kissing necessarily disrupts visual, emotional, moral, and political, fields of hetero normative expectation. Same-sex kisses are therefore immediately marked, immediately suspect, and immediately susceptible to discipline because they are understood, often viscerally, as an unnatural and dangerous erotic expression “as exigent representation.11

Such homosexual acts can be seen as uncivil when they do not align with the individual observer’s moral beliefs and values. But the actual actions of homosexual couples are not uncivil; they are the same acts in which heterosexual couples participate. It is only when the person watching the act is opposed to homosexuality that they find an act like kissing to be uncivil.

79 The “Kiss-In” protest at Chick-Fil-A provides an example of gay rights activists using the prejudice of those who oppose them to create a visual protest. The protest came from the backlash against the Chick-Fil-A restaurants when the company publicly stated their discrimination against homosexuality. While it had been known that Chick-Fil-A was a conservative company that claimed to uphold Christian values, their beliefs about gays were never publicly stated until the company president, Dan Cathy, made a statement saying, “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful arrogant attitude to think we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about.”12 After that statement was released, Cathy stated he was guilty as charged of being anti-gay marriage, adding, “I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”13 As one can imagine, this stirred up controversy.

Gay rights supporters brainstormed to make a stand against Chick-Fil-A and decided to stage a “Kiss-In,” where same-sex couples would stand outside of the nationwide fast food chain restaurants, kissing on the lips. The Kiss-Ins occurred all over the country and drew a great deal of media attention.

Discrimination or Incivility?

If the act of kissing outside a restaurant had been committed by heterosexual couples, would the media have made it a headline story? Would Chick-Fil-A have been so distraught by the situation, and would those who disagree with gay rights view this issue as an act of incivility?

It wasn’t the act of kissing that made the “Kiss-In” uncivil. It wasn’t even the people doing the kissing. What made the visual image of same-sex couples kissing “uncivil” to some individuals was those same individuals’ prejudice against gays and lesbians. Like Morris and Sloop explain, the visual action got attention because it “interrupted” how some people see the world; for those

80 who oppose gay rights, seeing same-sex couples kissing felt like an attack. But the action was just a kiss. In this case, incivility is in the eye of the beholder, dependent on one’s moral beliefs to define what is viewed as uncivil. If a person does not agree with gay rights, they are likely to see anything gay rights activists do as uncivil, just as people who opposed the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s acted as if a person trying to sit down on a bus or at a lunch counter was being uncivil.

Discussion Questions 1. Do you think our society will be able to reach a point where equality is met for all and discrimination does not occur due to differing beliefs? Why or why not?

2. Do you think calling a protest “uncivil” is a form of discrimination? Why or why not?

3. What is one way you think you could disagree with a social group on an issue without discriminating against them?

1

Charles Stewart, Craig Smith, Robert Denton, Persuasion and Social Movements, 2001, Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. 2 Ibid., 188-190 3 Ibid.

4 “The Sit-In Movement” U.S. History Pre-Columbian to the New Millennium. http://www.ushistory.org/us/54d.asp 5 “Suffragists Arrested While Picketing at the White House” America’s Story from America’s Library http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_sufarrst_1.html 6 “Highlights from NOW’s Forty Fearless Years” National Organization for Women. http://www.now.org/history/timeline.html 7 Ibid.

8 “Stonewall Riots: The Beginning of the LGBT Movement” http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/449stonewall.html 9 Ibid.

10 Charles Morris, John Sloop. “What Lips These Lips Have Kissed:” Refiguring the Politics of Queer Public Kissing, 2006.

11 Ibid, 4.

12 “Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: ‘Guilty As charged’” Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html 13 Ibid.

81 Obama’s Presidency: Incivility and Bumper Stickers Alecia Pasdera12 Bumper stickers attract the attention of many drivers and passersby. Some are hilarious, some are thought-provoking, and others are just plain crude. A good portion of bumper stickers out on the road are political in some form. It is important to note that the history of political bumper stickers has evolved. Originally, bumper stickers were simple in nature. They consisted simply of the last name of a presidential candidate and his running mate with the election year, such as “Reagan-Bush ’84.”1 They also included simple phrases such as “Jimmy Carter for President”2 or “President Nixon. Now more than ever.”3 Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy in 2008 marked a notable change in the nature of bumper stickers and civility in general as race became an important factor for the first time in American presidential politics.

2008 Presidential Election Background The presidential election of 2008 was a unique one for several reasons. Obama was the nation’s first African-American presidential candidate from a major party, and “in a context where an already-intense campaign was ratcheted up by a severe recession and two wars in progress, civility was bound to emerge as a central issue.”4 The incivility of Obama’s presidency goes beyond just politics; it is underlined with racism and prejudice. When the public learned that Obama’s full name was Barack Hussein Obama II, some sectors of the population made assumptions about the presidential candidate based on his middle name. There were rumors that Obama was not a valid candidate for president because he was allegedly born in Kenya, and, therefore, not an American citizen. The allegations also included an assumption that Obama was Muslim, and not Christian as he claimed to be.5

Alecia Pasdera is from Waukesha, WI. She has a major in Communication, as well as a minor in French. After graduation, she plans on pursuing a career in either print or broadcast journalism.

82 In February 2008, these rumors were only strengthened when the political news website The Drudge Report posted a photograph of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress—a white turban and wraparound white robe. Various rumor mills “took the image as irrefutable proof that Obama was in fact Muslim.”6 As a result, there was an explosion of anti-Obama propaganda that likened the presidential candidate to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader behind the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At McCainPalin rallies, there were “raucous and insistent cries of ‘Treason,’ ‘Terrorist,’ ‘Kill him,’ and ‘Off with his head!’”7 The link between Obama and terrorism created some of the most uncivil political memorabilia to date, including bumper stickers.

Uncivil Attacks on Obama The 2008 election gave rise to bumper stickers that reflect the racist attitudes of some of Obama’s opponents. Perhaps the most outrageous attacks on Obama were the ones that called him a terrorist, simply because his middle name is typically Islamic. It is important to note that not all Muslims are terrorists, and suggesting so is ethically irresponsible. The allegation that Obama was Muslim led to outrageous bumper stickers that equated Obama with Osama bin Laden. Such stickers read: “Spell-Check Says Obama is Osama”8 and “The only difference between Obama and Osama is BS."9 While negative bumper stickers and campaigns are nothing new in American politics, this sort of attack on Obama can be considered especially uncivil because of the religious and racial undertones.

Regardless of one’s political beliefs or views of Obama, publicly calling him a terrorist is uncivil. The word “terrorist” has become a “Devil term” in modern American society, meaning that it carries ultimate negative connotations. The idea of a Devil term was first explained by Richard Weaver in his book The Ethics of Rhetoric.10 An example of a Devil term in the United

83 States is “un-American,” and the adjective “American” is the ultimate “God term,” meaning that it is regarded positively in public discourse. Both of these are referred to as Universal Terms because whenever they are used, they carry universal positive or negative connotations. The word “terrorist” became a universal Devil term in the United States after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” began. Because the term has such negative feelings attached to it, it is uncivil to call a candidate a terrorist.

There was no evidence throughout the campaign that Obama was Muslim, and there was no legitimate reason to believe that Obama was a terrorist. This is a perfect example of the narrow-minded belief, held by some people all over the world, that all Muslims are potential terrorists. Because of their accusation that Obama was a terrorist, 2008 campaign bumper stickers are a clear example of incivility since the claim is unfounded and racist; it seems designed only to incite and polarize people, not to engage people in meaningful political thought or debate.

Other bumper stickers have insinuated that Obama is not a terrorist, but a communist.

Communism became a Devil term in the United States during the McCarthy Era and the Red Scare of the 1950s and has persisted ever since. One communist-themed bumper sticker printed in 2012 reads: “Communist Propaganda” with the letter “o” in “communist” designed with Obama’s famous “hope” logo (a circular graphic with a blue arch over five red and white horizontal stripes).11 This is another example of uncivil political rhetoric because it sacrifices truth to falsely align Obama, a Democrat, with communism.

Another anti-Obama bumper sticker that can be found on the streets has a graphic design of Obama’s face in front of his “hope” logo with the caption “Does this ASS make my car look BIG?”12 This is an example of an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacious attack on the person

84 instead of his or her policies, actions, or words. The bumper sticker is quite literally calling Obama a mean name, which is never productive in political discourse. It is okay to disagree with a president’s policies, but calling a president—or anyone—a mean name is not simply childish, it detracts from legitimate discussion of issues.

Perhaps the most offensive anti-Obama bumper sticker from the 2012 election was the one that read “Don’t Re-Nig In 2012.” This phrase sits above smaller text that reads: “Stop repeat offenders. Don’t re-elect Obama!”13 This bumper sticker and others like it call Obama a “nig,” which is a shortened form of the offensive word “nigger” which has been used to demean and dehumanize those of African-American descent for centuries. The term is so offensive that it silences productive political discourse. This sort of blatantly racist bumper sticker is also an example of the ad hominem fallacy because it attacks and insults Obama based on the color of his skin but never addresses actual policies. This is the epitome of incivility because it is racist and disrespectful; it silences rather than invites serious political discussion.

What Does Civility in Politics Look Like?

Although it is impossible for everyone to agree on politics, it is imperative that everyone makes an effort to be civil. Civility takes many different forms and demands “arguing, listening, and respect for the deliberative process.”14 Two people can still be civil if they disagree and argue about a political topic or candidate. Arguing is healthy for politics, as a matter of fact; it encourages new ideas and compromise. To remain civil, however, all parties involved in a political discussion (even a visual one involving bumper stickers) must keep the argument fair. It is necessary to speak and listen respectfully. This means no calling names, no personal attacks, and no outrageous and unfounded claims about a person’s character or personhood. When political rhetoric oversteps these boundaries, incivility is the result.

85 Implications of Uncivil Bumper Stickers Although not all anti-Obama bumper stickers are racist and uncivil, it is important to look at the ones that are and analyze the ways in which they lead to unproductive political discussion or actually silence discussion. While disagreement can be productive for a healthy democracy when done respectfully, much of the uncivil talk in our present-day political communication “is racist, sexist, or just plain rude.”15 We live in a country where every citizen has been granted the right to freedom of speech, and even uncivil and rude forms of discourse are protected under the law. Everyone has the right to display a bumper sticker that calls a political figure a name, even if it is racist or grossly unfounded. However, it must be noted that the uncivil bumper stickers discussed in this paper are toxic for our democracy. Blatantly offensive bumper stickers tell viewers who may hold different opinions to “go away, I don’t want to have a productive conversation with you.” Of course, our democracy can only thrive if we all civilly engage in productive conversation about politics.

Discussion Questions: 1. In addition to the bumper stickers mentioned in this essay, what are some examples of incivility in other forms of political communication?

2. What are the negative implications of racist bumper stickers? How do they function to shut down productive discussion?

3. Other than censorship, how can society stop or at least decrease uncivil political statements?

86

1

“Ronald Reagan Bumper Sticker.” GOP Mall, 2013, http://www.gopmall.com/bumper-stickers/ronald-reaganbumper-sticker-2264/ (10 Feb. 2014).

2 “1977 - 1981 President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale Campaign Bumper Stickers.”

PresidentialElection.com, 1998 , http://www.presidentialelection.com/historical_memorabilia_and_ collectibles/categories/vintage_bumper_stickers/ (10 Feb. 2014).

3 “1969 - 1974 President Richard Milhous Nixon and Vice President Gerald Ford Campaign Bumper Stickers.”

PresidentialElection.com, http://www.presidentialelection.com/historical_memorabilia_and_collectibles /categories/vintage_bumper_stickers/ (10 Feb. 2014).

4 Susan Herbst, Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Temple University Press, Philadelphia 2010 (3).

5 Shore A., ”The Difference a Letter Makes: Obama and Osama in the New Media Public Sphere.”

Afterimage,37(5), 2010 (21) http://search.proquest.com/docview/603181560?accountid=9525 (22 Jan. 2014).

6 Shore 21.

7 Frank Rich. “The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama.” The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html?_r=0 (24 Feb. 2014).

8 “The Most Ridiculous Anti-Obama Bumper Stickers EVER (PHOTOS).” Huffington Post, 24 Sept. 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/obama-bumperstickers_n_737512.html#s144469title= Theres_No_Higher (25 Jan. 2014).

9 Shore 21.

10 Richard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric. (California: Hermagorus press, 1985) 222.

11 “Communist Propaganda.” Patriot Depot, 2014, http://patriotupdate.com/videos/obama-communistpropaganda/ (25 Jan. 2014).

12 “Does this ASS make my car look BIG?” Patriot Depot, http://patriotdepot.com/does-this-ass-make-my-car-lookbig-sticker/ (25 Jan. 2014).

13 Keyes, Alexa, “’Don’t Re-Nig in 2012′: Maker of Racist Anti-Obama Sticker Shuts Down Site.” ABC News, 16 March, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obamasticker-shuts-down-site/ (25 Jan. 2014).

14 Herbst 13.

15 Herbst 4.

87 A Name as a Grenade: The Use of “Hitler” as a Weapon in Politics Sunny Stroede13 “Name-calling” in politics is not a new tactic. A large concern of most politicians is to raise the public’s opinion of themselves or their party while diminishing that of the opposition.

Name-calling is one way some politicians try to meet that goal. But how much name-calling and image smearing can happen before discussion and debate are hindered? Is this kind of attack on people’s character acceptable or should it be looked down upon and discouraged?

In American politics, the name “Adolf Hitler” is sometimes used as an attack on an opponent’s credibility. I will begin my analysis with a brief history of Hitler himself and his effect on the study of communication. In the second section, I will explain how a term like “Hitler” can have a silencing effect on opponents. In the third section, I will show some examples of this incivility and discuss whether there is a reasonable response to being called “Hitler” and how that, in turn, might affect political communication. Ultimately, I will argue that incivility can actually halt political debate, and thus, democracy in action.

Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889 on the Austrian-German border.1 When he was sixteen years old, he dropped out of school, and in 1913, when World War I began, he enlisted in the German Army in Munich.2 By 1921, Hitler had become the unquestioned leader of the group known today as the Nazi party. In 1923, he was arrested and imprisoned for nine months after an unsuccessful attempt to organize an armed uprising in Munich.3 It was during those nine months that Hitler composed his book, Mein Kampf, in which he outlined his political ideology,

Sunny Stroede is a Communication major and Psychology minor from Wisconsin Dells, WI. In the future Sunny hopes to work in web design and database management.

88 including his hatred for the Jewish people. According to Kenneth Burke, a well-respected Rhetorical Theorist, in his essay entitled, “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle,” Hitler knew that uniting people against a common enemy was a stronger and more effective rallying tactic than uniting for a common good. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he had already made promises to the Nazi Party that he would help to heal the economic wounds from which Germany had still not recovered after WWI. Hitler firmly believed that the Jews were to blame for Germany’s current financial crisis, and he combined this with his skills in public speaking to persuade the German public to rally behind him against the Jewish people.

Once released from prison, Hitler used new techniques of mass communication backed up by force and violence to rebuild the Nazi Party.4 By the 1932 elections, the Nazi Party had become the strongest and largest political party in Germany. In 1933, Hitler claimed dictatorial powers and soon began to enforce anti-Jewish laws.5 In time, he was able to gain the support of Italy and Japan to create the Axis, the three-party alliance on one side of the battle line in World War II. The Nazi’s invasion of Poland began in September of 1939. Soon after, they spread to gain control over Denmark, Norway, and most of Western Europe.6 It was during this period that Hitler rounded up and killed millions of Jewish people; Nazi forces also imprisoned and sometimes killed others who disagreed with their plans. In 1944, British and American forces landed in France and began to battle Hitler’s armies, soon draining Germany’s resources. 7 On April 30, 1945, Hitler committed suicide in his bunker as the Soviet Union’s troops prepared to take the German capitol.

It was not until the end of the war that the rest of the world learned the full extent of the atrocities committed by Hitler against the Jewish people. However, some people believe that if closer attention had been paid to Hitler’s language, outside countries would have been faster to

89 react to Hitler’s war. Since then, many scholars who study communication have asked, “What can we do to ensure that audiences never again fall prey to a speaker of Hitler’s power?

Specifically, how can we teach people to understand the power of persuasion enough so that they cannot be victim to the sort of deadly rallying that Hitler used?”

The Art of Silencing Although Rene Descartes’ primary contributions were in the fields of philosophy and logic, he also wrote about rhetoric, particularly about how to silence those who challenged his views. Intolerant of those who disagreed with him, Descartes believed that the way to deal with people who challenged him in a public setting was to mock them into submission and silence. It seems some Americans are trying this same tactic in the political sphere when they use Hitler’s name as a way to shame and silence their opponents.

There is not one person in the United States who has matched the atrocities committed by Hitler in World War II, so the use of Hitler’s name in an argument cannot be seen as a legitimate form of argument by comparison. Instead, “Hitler” functions purely to shame the opponent, likely with the hope to shock an audience into recoiling from one’s opponent. Like name-calling during a grade school skirmish, this kind of an attack on character in politics is used often as a last resort, when one person has nothing legitimate left to argue, and, frustrated, they pull out the worst that they can find.

Richard Weaver’s theory of Devil terms helps explain how Hitler’s name has the power to shame and silence. Devil terms are part of Weaver’s larger theory known as Ultimate Terms, which are “words which have special meaning within each culture and carry power where they are used.”8 There are three different kinds of Ultimate Terms: God terms, Devil terms, and charismatic terms. God terms “carry blessing, demand sacrifice and obedience.”9 In other words,

90 they carry a singular positive meaning within a specific culture and have the power to move people to make sacrifices in order to protect the culture and its people. Weaver’s examples of powerful God terms in the 1950’s included: “progress,” “modern,” “efficient,” and “American.”10 Devil terms are the exact opposite and evoke feelings of fear and disgust.11 Among the Devil terms Weaver identified in the 1950’s were “un-American,” “communist,” and “prejudice.”12 Charismatic terms are similar to God terms in that they evoke good feelings; however, they are less concrete and tend to mean slightly different things to different people.

Weaver’s examples of Charismatic terms include: “freedom” and “contribution.”13 After WWII and the realization of the genocide committed by Hitler, his name became not simply infamous, but a devil term in American culture. More than 60 years later, Hitler’s name still is associated with the terrible crimes he committed against humanity. The very mention of his name calls forth feelings of heartache, anger, and disgust; “Hitler” represents moral and political evil for Americans. Thus, “Hitler” carries with it immense power of shaming and silencing, because it is one of the most powerful of all Devil terms in American culture.

When a speaker calls someone “Hitler,” the speaker is attaching to the opponent all of the hatred and violence associated with Hitler’s name.

“Hitler” As a Weapon In 2007, Congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, referred to President Bush as “Hitler,” stating that President Bush took advantage of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center much like Hitler did the “Reichstag fire.”14 On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building was burned to the ground.15 This happened, not coincidently, in the middle of Hitler’s rise to power. Holland native, arsonist, and Communist Marinus van der Lubbe, “was in Berlin attempting to burn government buildings in order to protest capitalism and

91 start a revolt.”16 Lubbe broke into the Reichstag building around 9 p.m., accompanied by Nazi storm troopers, and lit the building on fire.17 Hitler and his government supporters organized the event, and it eventually led to him receiving power to do with whatever he deemed necessary.

Congressman Ellison’s argument was that President Bush took advantage of the country in a time of need in order to gain political power, just as Hitler did with the fire. What Congressman Ellison perhaps did not realize was that in making this connection and thus calling up the entire Hitler legacy, he then accused President Bush of knowing about the 9/11 attacks prior to them occurring.

There is record of commentary both condemning Ellison and supporting him. The day following the statement, “the Republican Party of Minnesota released the following statement, ‘Keith Ellison's despicable comments likening President Bush to Adolf Hitler need to be immediately repudiated by all Democrats in Minnesota. To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivializes the horrors of Nazi Germany.’”18 While CNN host Wolf Blitzer and correspondent Keith Oppenheim defended Ellison’s right to make the statement, Oppenheim noted, “and to be clear, Wolf, Keith Ellison is not saying that September 11 was pre-planned by the government or the Bush administration, more that the tragedy, in his view, has been used in a manipulative way to further policies and legislation.”19 Another example of an American using “Hitler” as a weapon occurred in 2013, when Republican Arizona Legislator Brenda Barton put a post out on Facebook that referred to President Obama as “Der Fuhrer.” This is a German word meaning, “the leader”20 that was taken on by Hitler during his time as dictator. After receiving criticism for the post, Barton responded saying, “He’s dictating beyond his authority. It’s not just the death camps. [Hitler]

92 started in the communities, with national health care and gun control. You better read your history. Germany started with national health care and gun control before any of that other stuff happened. And Hitler was elected by a majority of people.”21 As in the Barton example, the defense used by some who employ the Devil term “Hitler” is that Hitler’s legacy is about more than the genocide, that the true issues they are addressing are about power in politics. What they try to deny is that the negativity of the atrocious crimes Hitler committed is always attached to Hitler’s name, not his views on health care. Due to that powerful emotional attachment, politicians who call on “Hitler” shame and silence their opponents. This strategy of incivility works to halt communication, because it creates party tension. In both of the examples above, the strategy caused commentators for both the Republicans and Democrats to battle back and forth over whether the accusation was warranted or offensive. Devil terms like “Hitler” do nothing but create incivility between political opponents, their parties, and their supporters.

The first section of this paper tracked Hitler’s rise to power and what he chose to do with that power. The second section addressed Rene Descartes’s theory of silencing and Richard Weaver’s Ultimate terms and how they work together to create incivility in politics. The final section focused on examples of using “Hitler” as a weapon in politics today. All three of the above points affect political communication on today’s competitive political stage, but it is up to you—as both a speaker and a voter—to decide whether using attacks like “Hitler” is acceptable or not.

93

Discussion Questions 1. What is your opinion on politicians shaming and silencing their opponents in the public sphere? Is it ever acceptable?

2. Do you believe incivility can ever completely stop discussion? Does the use of Devil terms fall under this category?

3. What are some words today that would fall under Weaver’s definition of a Devil term?

1 2

“More information about: Adolf Hitler.” last modified 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/adolf_hitler

Ibid.

Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid 3

8 9

Ultimate terms.” last modified 2014, http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/ultimate_terms.htm

Ibid.

Theresa Enos, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Time to the Information Age (New York: Routledge, 2010), 741 11 “Ultimate terms.”

12 Enos, 741.

13 “Ultimate terms.”

14 “Dem congressman compares president bush to hitler, media mum" Sheppard N, last modified July 16, 2007, http://newsbusters.org/node/14103 15 “The Reichstag Burns.” last modified 2014, http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm 16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Sheppard.

19 Ibid.

20 “Fuhrer.” Last modified 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/führer 21 “Arizona legislator compares president obama to hitler because national parks are closed (updated),” Israel, J., last modified October 8, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/08/2745661/arizona-state-rep-obama-hitler/ 10

Depar t mentofCommuni cat i on

300Wes tSewar dSt r eet•Pos tOf f i ceBox248 Ri pon,Wi s cons i n 549710248 9207488712 www. r i pon. edu