On Saturday, September 14, 2002, Audra Collier wrote:

Jeanne,
In Soc 370 you said that civil discourse involved discussing and arguing what people don't agree on in a civilized manner. Let me try to rephrase that: Civil discourse involves a discussion between people who do not agree with each other on some issue of civil importance. The discussion takes place with the purpose of persuasion, that is, using instrumental reason, trying to convince someone to accept your viewpoint. And the whole discussion takes place through reasoned argument in a civilized manner.

Well in my opinion civil discourse is dead. Especially when it comes to politics. Many innocent people have just lost their lives in the war on terror which still isn't resolved. Now our so called president Bush . . .

Audra, this is pejorative. He is technically and legally realized as the president. So he isn't "so called." Many of us share an anger over the last election, but we need to recall that 49% or so of the population voted for him. Since this site is international, not everyone will share our anger. There are many who think his rah! rah! patriotism is the right response, among them Amitai Etzioni, a well-respected sociologist. It's OK to be sarcastic if you're certain your teacher shares your exasperation, but sometimes our political opinions stay in the closet. Better to avoid pejoratives unless you really mean to alienate some of your readers. . . . want's to go to war with Iraq, I mean, come on. Haven't we learned enough from the Sept 11th tragedy? We have learned a great deal from the September 11th tragedy, but I dare say we'd have a hard time coming by a consensus of what we learned. Careful, someone's likely to challenge you on that. In the Moot court class, that's likely to be one of our judges! Bush does not have the intellect and common sense You know, I'll bet you're wrong about that. It's hard to get to be President, even if Daddy did make it seem much easier. Maybe he's not the smartest president we ever had, but we (the whole country), either really elected him or came darned close to it. I agree that he doesn't have the disciplinary restraint, the judicious weighing of depth problems perceived from many viewpoints, I'd like him to have. He's stubborn and spoiled to getting his way, and those are dangerous practices in the current crisis, but tremendous success has come to him through the narrower more elitist strategies he uses. He's not a scholar; but traditionally Americans don't elect scholars. to practice civil discourse, instead he'd rather cut the lives of our fellow soldiers short. I mean, it's one thing to disagree with another country's practices or their leader, but at least try to talk it out. Good point. Saddam is a crazy person (Whoa! Have you seen his psychiatric reports??) and Bush has to know what he is up against before he jumps the gun. Yes. Had Bush talked out issues he didn't agree on, in a civilized manner, then maybe many Americans would still be alive. I agree, Audra. That's why I try to teach the need for peace and human understanding. But it's hard to learn that. And the world hasn't doen so well in centuries past. President Bush might just represent the terrible tenor of our times.

Audra Colier

---

---