Lamenting the overheated political rhetoric of our time

“A man that’d expict to thrain lobsters to fly in a year is called a loonytic, but a man that thinks men can be tur-rned into angels by an iliction is called a rayformer and remains at large.”

That bit of wisdom concerning the limitations of the electoral process was coined by Mr. Dooley. A purely fictitious creation of author Finley Peter Dunne, Mr. Dooley held forth on many subjects—politics included—from his perch in a Chicago pub. The Dooley sketches first appeared in newspapers and were collected by Dunne in several popular books.

I thought of Dooley recently as I read a memo the executive director of a retirement community sent residents, cautioning them to mind their manners in an election year. It read in part:

In the coming months, it will be essential for us to demonstrate respectful behavior to each other, even when we disagree. Derogatory, discriminatory, or harassing behaviors will simply not be tolerated. That is not who we are. We strive to be kind, caring, inclusive, and respectful.

Did the executive director see trouble brewing? Did the memo work? Who can tell?

One thing seems certain. Our politicians lately have been setting a bad example (again?) for the rest of us via their so-called debates. I for one would welcome authentic discussions in which candidates exchanged thoughtful views in measured, civil tones and spent their time—and ours—spelling out competing approaches to problems bearing on the common good.

What we have now instead are name-calling contests better suited to the schoolyard than the debate hall.

Noteworthy, too, is the candidly self-critical report by the Secret Service concerning its failures in security procedures in connection with July 13 rally in Butler, Pa., near Pittsburgh featuring former president Donald Trump. Trump was grazed by a bullet, two other people were critically injured, and one person was killed. The gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was shot and killed by a Secret Service sniper. And if that wasn’t enough, just the other day, yet another would-be assassination—this time at a Trump golf club in Florida.

It is hardly news that among the consequences of political campaigns are heightened passions. Appropriately tough security is part of the necessary response to this fact of life. So, too, are tougher gun control laws. And so are serious, binding commitments by candidates to tone down their rhetoric. No one will be any the worse for these measures, while the nation as a whole will be a lot better off.

Even in the sequestered setting of a retirement community, its director judged it imperative to urge elderly residents to avoid causing trouble by expressing “derogatory, discriminatory, harassing” views of one another in an overheated political environment.

Good advice. Too bad it was needed. And as this is written, there’s a month and a half to go before the election. We shall see how “kind, caring, inclusive, and respectful” of one another the memo’s recipients—and others, too—will succeed in being.

I have no foolproof suggestions for avoiding the kind of unpleasantness envisaged here—except for the obvious step of swearing off political discussions in politically mixed company. In addition, putting aside spiritual reading or whatever they do with their spare time, people who get hot under the collar in political arguments would do well to ponder another bit of wisdom from Mr. Dooley:

“A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.”

Catholic World Report