Civility Sermonizing

A commenter--the gutsy Anonymous Guy--recently took me to task for various failings; I wanted to respond today. I republish his entire comment down below.

A widespread misunderstanding pervades political discourse in CD3 concerning civility. The prevailing view posits 'any politician committed to silence, mush and blandness can achieve lofty civility'. In other words, civility is entirely a matter of refraining from using certain words and phrases, even when well-justified. By this standard, Rep. Erik Paulsen's frequent self-shoulder-patting on civility is perfectly au fait.

I counter: We need to acknowledge that civility requires several additional components--and indeed, civil discourse can occasionally be strengthened when strong language is judiciously employed. When Erik Paulsen ducks dialogue--cancelling our multi-decade town hall tradition, he assaults civility. When he lies to the local media--just this month telling the Sun-Current his private meeting with a GOP fat cat constitutes 'a town hall meeting', he undermines civility. When Congressman Paulsen maintains a blacklist gagging his staffers from replying to non-sycophantic constituents, he corrodes civility. Rep. Paulsen's anti-civility efforts have been vastly more damaging to the quality of CD3's public intercourse than anything any local blogger has published.

Similarly, Paulsenbots reacted with horror recently when I lobbed David Brock's anti-Anita Hill attack at one Tom Styczinski--calling him a bit nutty and a bit slutty. Many observers seem to believe that when a person calls another a slut, for example, that the party using the strong language is invariably at fault--and is therefore guilty of undermining civility. I ask such participants to recall: I didn't hurl the epithets at Mr. Styczinski by accident: I laid a strong foundation for them.

Remember: Rep. Paulsen abolished CD3's town hall tradition, replacing the venerable institution with invitation-only, topic-predetermined teleconferences. No well-informed observer could fail to note Paulsen was severely reducing the ability of constituents to communicate with him--in public--as social equals. To throw voters off the scent, Mr. Styczinski wrote his bootlicking letter to the Eden Prairie News, thanking Paulsen for his delightful recent 'Town Hall meeting'. Styczinski was emphatically testing the outer limits of public bullshitting--and was likely thinking 'surely no one would have the temerity to attack me personally over this!' (Well surprise, Tom.)

So the assault on civility was Erik Paulsen's and Mr. Styczinski's--the congressman's compliant valet. In attacking Mr. Styczinski personally, my intent was to restore civility, by maintaining a more limited boundary separating acceptable and unacceptable public discourse.

Furthermore: The Sun-Current has acknowledged to me, in writing, that Congressman Paulsen's staff called Paulsen's meeting with the fat cat 'a town hall meeting'. The phrasing did not originate with the reporter.

Also: Yes, Paulsen can reinstate the quarterly town hall tradition anytime he wants. But please recall: Congressman Ramstad held multiple town halls each quarter. If Erik Paulsen decides to recommit himself to civility--and restart the town halls--he'll have to make clear his commitment will be to quarterly town halls at multiple venues, just like his predecessor. His constituents have every right to notify him: Once bitten, twice shy.

Anonymous Guy commented:

Gavin:

I could not resist calling you a nutty slut earlier, and making the point about how you should not just throw insults at people that you disagree with. I do have some comments on the actual content of your letter as well, if you are now willing to engage in a civil conversation.

You start out by saying, “US Rep. Erik Paulsen has unwisely ended the Third Congressional District's multi-decade tradition of town hall meetings--implementing the democracy-shrinking change without any public warning or consultation.”

What evidence do you have that Congressman Paulsen has ended the tradition of holding in-person town hall meetings? It seems you are making an assumption that just because there was not an in-person town hall meeting in August, their will not be any in-person town hall meetings. Is August the only time you can hold an in-person town hall meeting?

You make another assumption in your criticism about the town hall meeting at Morrie’s. You assume “Team Paulsen” are the ones that called it a town hall meeting, it seems just as likely the writer or editor came up with that characterization. It is also possible that it was a term Morrie’s company uses. I know in the company I work for they often hold what they call “town hall meetings.” Actually, according to the definition you linked to, it is a perfectly acceptable use of the term. The community in this instance would be the company’s employees.

Also, your criticisms of Congressman Erik Paulsen’s telephone town hall meetings are off base. Everyone is invited to the town hall meetings, and with people’s busy schedules that format allows more people to participate. I will quote from the Wikipedia definition that you linked to. “There are no specific rules or guidelines for holding a town hall meeting.” This means that it is very legitimate for Congressman Paulsen to use another format to try and increase participation, and accurate for him to still call it a Town Hall meeting.

Concerning The Acquitted Doctor

Supporters rally behind the freshly-booked Dr.
James McLeod - downtown Minneapolis, Spring, 2004

Hi Pat,

In our recent exchange I got quite justifiably roiled--and regrettably suggested that your father-in-law 'is a pedophile'. Upon reflection, I am in fact agnostic on that point. Since you have such a close relationship with the McLeod family, I wanted to ask you:

Two accusers came forward against Dr. McLeod. One of the cases went to a trial which resulted in acquittal. (As always, if I have anything incorrect here, by all means set me straight.)

As a juror, one would presumably be asking oneself 'Is Dr. McLeod guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?' So for the acquittal, jurors reached a unanimous verdict: They had not been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. McLeod molested (to wit: masturbated and fellated) the then-adolescent patient. (The jurors were unaware a second accuser waited in the wings.)

I'm curious to learn what a well-informed McLeod defender would say, in describing the entire matter to an intelligent outsider. The inquiring outsider would be asking questions somewhat different from those which were addressed within the courtroom, of course. She'd want to know how two accusers would be coming forward, making claims that Dr. McLeod had molested them.

Has Dr. McLeod put forward any persuasive theory on this? (If not, please forward this entire email to Dr. McLeod--I'd like his response to all these various questions.)

I was unable to attend the trial; the matter created quite a stir within our family and within the larger community. Everyone I spoke with was curious about the matter. The media reporting on the issues was circumspect; I don't recall any reporter really offering an opinion on what he observed, at the trial, so people had essentially no basis for assessing the credibility of the accuser.

Not long ago, I purchased a transcript of the trial. The transcript is about 1,000 pages long and arrived at my doorstep in six volumes, of which I've only read the first--which includes the testimony of the accuser and defense attorney Bill Mauzy's cross-examination.

Reading volume # 1 of Minnesota v. McLeod, I wanted to share a few impressions. The upper middle class accuser strikes me as being well-spoken, exceptionally level-headed and internally coherent: The accuser is highly credible. Mauzy attempts to attack the accuser's trustworthiness with appeals to age-old popular prejudices--against artsy types and those still developing in the sexual-identity department. (Both of these lines of attack are irrelevant and unmoving, no?) And a great amount of the courtroom discussion examines the accuser's admission of having cheated on his diet, as if such cheating ['lying'] would indicate some predilection towards inventing molestation claims against the family doctor! (This line of argument also seems incredibly stupid to me. Does it impress you?)

After the acquittal, Dr. McLeod had his license to practice medicine reinstated. So parents are now taking their children for medical care with Dr. McLeod. Presumably these parents find Bill Mauzy's courtroom rhetoric quite persuasive--that 'actors' are untrustworthy, that sexually-confused youth are liable to concoct stories about being molested by their doctors, that sneaking a bag of potato chips indicates Jekyll/Hyde-level psychic imbalance. In your observation, has Dr. McLeod ever expressed embarrassment over the moronic statements made in his defense, in court, by his own lawyer?

Before I'd allow my child in Dr. McLeod's care, I'd need to review a much more comprehensive explanation of Dr. McLeod's views on the entire matter. As a parent, I'd be in a very different position than a juror: I'm not determining whether reasonable doubt of Dr. McLeod's guilt exists--I'm trying to decide whether significant doubt of Dr. McLeod's innocence exists. So I'd need someone to explain to me why two accusers came forward, with similar charges--and why the accuser is so poised, internally-consistent and even relaxed. Does Dr. McLeod have incredibly bad luck? Does he believe the two teens organized a conspiracy? If the latter, does Dr. McLeod think anyone other than the two teens was in on the conspiracy? What for?

If Dr. McLeod is unable to speak on these questions, then your opinion will be very welcome--since I'm confident you're up-to-speed with the McLeod family's line. I'd like to publish a blogpost on this matter--and therefore I'd appreciate any fact-checking you can offer on anything in this email.

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan

Letter to the Eden Prairie Sun-Current

To the editor:

US Rep. Erik Paulsen has unwisely ended the Third Congressional District's multi-decade tradition of town hall meetings--implementing the democracy-shrinking change without any public warning or consultation. (The Sun-Current should poll readers as to whether they agree with Paulsen--that voters needn't be allowed the opportunity to speak with their representative.)

I just came across your Paulsen talks Cash for Clunkers [Eden Prairie Sun-Current, 8/13/09, p7]. In the article, Marc Ingber writes:

"U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen visited Morrie's Minnetonka Mazda dealership Monday, Aug. 3, for a town hall meeting to discuss issues related to the auto industry." Your article continues, "Morrie Wagener, CEO of Morrie's Automotive Group, hosted the Republican congressman." You neglect to mention Wagener is a major Paulsen contributor.

Wikipedia defines a town hall meeting as 'an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials...'

Paulsen in fact did not hold a pre-announced, public meeting in which everybody in the community was invited. The Sun-Current was negligent in allowing Team Paulsen's phony descriptive phrase into the article, without quotation marks.

Embarrassed for having abolished our lengthy Third District town hall tradition, Rep. Paulsen is attempting to persuade voters that a private meeting with a political sugar daddy now constitutes a 'town hall meeting'. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, Mr. Paulsen.

Sincerely,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Question Marx

Dr. Bernard E. Johnson alternates with a number of local churchfolk in writing the Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News. Johnson demonstrates his elevated humility this week--urging us to embrace life's question marks. How wonderful it is that religious people maintain such modesty--freely admitting they just don't know much. Shucks!

Perhaps it will occur to the moralist that a below-the-belt, fact-free attack on an unpopular philosophical minority might buttress his thesis:

"Richard Swenson is a medical doctor and respected scientist who had written about the amazing reality of the human being and its equally amazing limitations. He is especially interested in those who confidently rule out the possibility of God based on the revelations of science. Such people have rejected question marks and, in Swenson’s opinion, been blinded by a thimbleful of knowledge. Here is a person with a three pound brain sitting in judgment on God! Whatever else atheism is, it is too small."

Who's Swenson, you ask? He's Menomonie, Wisconsin's leading creationist yarn-spinner, pumping out a superstition-promoting book every several years. His own bio doesn't include the word scientist; his academic stature hasn't yet earned him a Nobel (nor even a Wikipedia entry). In his More Than Meets The Eye: Fascinating Glimpses of God's Power and Design, the 'futurist' reveals the following about Jesus: 'Without a doubt, he shed at least one red blood cell for every human who ever lived' (as Publishers Weekly noted as it panned). No non-creationist could conceivably find Swenson's opinion of any interest whatever.

Thousands of cosmological maps have been proposed over the millennia--and immense change has occurred within individual religions over time. To commit oneself to a specific faith in its particular temporal guise is to reject nearly as many alternatives as does Richard Dawkins. To choose one religion to believe in--among the thousands that humans have described--requires one to reject a slew of subpar claimants. If we judge it a capital offense to employ one's three-pounder to reject gods, we should buy our crucifixion lumber in bulk.

My email to Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad

Hello Messrs. Frenzel and Ramstad,

I sincerely hope both of you are well.

Yesterday I published a post criticizing Rep. Erik Paulsen for cancelling our CD3 'Town Hall' tradition, and for the regrettably dishonest manner in which he did it--claiming to be innocuously replacing the in-person Town Hall forums with a telephonic 'equivalent'.

An anonymous Erik Paulsen supporter replied to my post, calling into question whether you actually adhered to the 'quarterly' schedule I claimed. To be honest, the claimed interval came from my memory, having resided in CD3 for more than three decades, and having attended your Town Hall forums on numerous occasions.

I strive for accuracy and fairness in my blogging. Can you please provide me with a list of the dates/venues of your Town Hall forums, during your Congressional careers? If you preserved no such list, might you please attempt to reply from memory?

If for any reason you won't answer this inquiry, can I humbly ask you to provide a few brief sentences explaining why you view the questions as out-of-bounds?

Fondly,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

cc: US Rep. Erik Paulsen

Tom Styczinski: A Bit Nutty and a Bit Slutty

Congressman Erik Paulsen's several predecessors established a decades-old tradition of holding quarterly 'Town Hall Forums'--in which constituents could address questions to their solon face-to-face. Upon assuming the seat, Paulsen unilaterally erased this democratic inheritance.

I've repeatedly emailed Rep. Paulsen, politely requesting his rationale for dismantling the Forums; he refuses even to acknowledge my inquiries. Paulsen has shown some sensitivity in the face of citizen displeasure with regard to the elimination of the time-tested institution.

The pharisaic legislator has marketed the move as a democracy-neutral 'tech upgrade'. The Town Hall forums are now conference calls--albeit with a distinction or two: The calls aren't open to all constituents. (Paulsen hand-picks invitees--and refuses to inform this blogger as to the scheduling of future forums.) Unlike his predecessors--Paulsen limits his cherry-picked questioners to the single topic of his choosing.

How might this pleasurable state of affairs be perpetuated? We'll need an obedient GOP lapdog willing to try to bamboozle the public on the dullard's behalf. Enter Tom Styczinski:

Mr. Styczinski has a letter-to-the-editor in the July 23, 2009 Eden Prairie News:

Paulsen Listens Through Teleconference

On Monday night, July 13, I attended [sic] the Town Hall meeting held via a telephone conference by Congressmen [sic] Erik Paulsen. The topic of the meeting was health care reform. Congressman Paulsen used this forum to tell us about what was happening in Congress, and more importantly, to listen to the voters.

I was really impressed with our young Congressman's grasp of the issues and the way he listened to our concerns. A lot of the participants provided great insight into how the government can affect employees and small business owners. Congressman Paulsen showed he understands our concerns and I know he will continue to fight for us.

Tom Styczinski
Eden Prairie