Six Magic Words For Civil Discourse : "What Do You Mean By That?"

Push a button, get attacked. The formula is foolproof, automatic, and works at the speed of fright. Rabid vitriol from both Left and Right permeates the American political landscape on every issue of significance. These days, civil political discourse is roughly as plentiful as sightings of passenger pigeons.

It does not have to be this way. Just six magic words could produce entire boatloads of civility, were they to find common usage.

It works like this:

Example #1: The President of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, Fernando Mateo, makes a public statement in which he endorses "racial profiling" of potential fares. The tops of numerous liberal heads blow like Karakatoa at hearing this. Mateo is attacked for his non-PC comment.

Had his attackers used the six magic words before flinging barbs, however, Fernando Mateo would never had been vilified. One of his strongest critics (so far, anyway) has been David Yassky, the head of New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission. He didn't speak with Mateo before snarling...but what if he had? What if he had simply, without heat, asked the Top Cabbie,

"What do you mean by that?"

Those who truly wanted to know just the facts, Ma'am, wouldn't have even needed to ask the question. They only needed to study Mateo's entire statement instead of taking the "racial profiling" buzz word and making it (rather than the violent crime being practiced all too frequently against New York cabbies) the issue. Because what the "horrible offender of all things politically correct" really wants, it turns out, has nothing whatsoever to do with racial profiling. Profiling, yes. Racial, no. He wants cabbies to drive right on past obvious gang bangers with hoodies and shades covering their faces, suspicious gun-shaped bulges under their too-lose clothing, pants on the ground--the dress code used by folks known to perpetrate most if not all of the violent crime currently leaving all too many drivers dead or seriously wounded.

By refusing to ask, "What do you mean by that?" (sincerely), liberal attack dogs have switched from the original statement ("Here's how we can avoid getting killed by bad people.") to an entirely different, unrelated declaration ("Fernando Mateo is a bad guy!").

Example #2: On The View, Bill O'Reilly states that Muslims attacked us on 9-11...whereupon Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg immediately storm off their own set in huff-rage.

Again, had the women simply asked Bill--sincerely, mind you, not in attack mode,

"What do you mean by that?"

Well, it would have defused the entire situation before the bomb even started ticking, and that probably wouldnt have done much to boost viewership. Maybe the appearance of strife did help ratings.

But it certainly avoided a clear shot at civil political discourse.

When it comes to lack of civility in politics, failure to use the six magic words is key--but it is only the symptom of the disease from which knee-jerk buzz-word barb-flingers suffer. The disease is, quite simply ASSUMITIS. We all know about the word "ASSUME". Even so, it's easy to underestimate the dread plague's horrific overal impact upon our society.

The problem is that an Assumitis sufferer assumes meaning...whenever a buzz-word buzzes about his bean. All he or she can hear is that infernal buzzing. Use those six magic words? Heck, ask any sincere question that does not pertain to the demise of the hated individual who uttered the buzz-bomb? NEVER!

And thus it goes.

Bottom line: When Assumitis sufferers do use any phrasing even close to being magical, it's usually cloaked and perverted by liberal (!) applications of both sarcasm and "cold heat" (which is closely related to cold rage as well as to cold steel). Like Arnold (Gary Coleman) used to ask his brother on the TV sitcom, Different Strokes:

"WHAT'CHU TALKIN' 'BOUT, WILLIS?!!"

Prognosis? Not great. Mostly same-old, same-old. Certainly, as Democrats heap abuse upon President Obama's head for daring to actually use some common sense in working out a tax compromise with Republicans this fine Holiday Season, the hardcore liberals are doing anything but asking sincerely, "What do you mean by that?". Mostly, they're just assuming and screaming a lot.

But maybe--just maybe--Obama himself has started asking that question. Just maybe he considered the unyielding refusal by Republicans to allow tax increases on any Americans at this time and asked (sincerely), "What do you mean by that?".

If so, when it's time for the Presidential Debates to air in 2012, Sarah Palin will certainly be glad to make it perfectly clear.

Remember in November 2012.