Opelika Observer Staff Editorial - 7/8: 'Disagree' does not mean 'disrespect'

At this week’s Opelika City Council meeting, a citizen took time to address the council during the Citizens’ Communications portion, a time set aside during each council meeting for the public to address the council with questions or grievances.

While the common belief may be that such an event is a normal occurrence, truthfully, it is not. Citizens rarely exercise the opportunity to speak at council meetings.

The aforementioned citizen was unhappy about several decisions and votes made and taken by the council, and stood up to voice those concerns - a perfectly valid and appropriate usage of the time allotted.

However, the citizen ended by taking aim at the mayor and council members on a personal level - questioning their honor and stating that the council members were “rapidly losing their honor.”

The citizen was later upbraided for those remarks by Council president Eddie Smith, but, to us, it seems a regrettable shame that the situation has come to that.

When did public discourse in this country fall to such a low level?

When did debate become who could yell the loudest and say the most outrageous things - regardless of whether they can be verified or not?

We are used to seeing politicians and commentators on the cable news networks engaging in such dubious behaviors, but we were unaware the poison had spread to so far, to the local, grass-root level.

Votes and decisions may not always be backed by everyone, but no one deserves the right to question and impugn the honor and integrity of someone for their vote.

You may not like a decision made by the council, but a vote you personally disagree with does not shame or dishonor a council member.

Any character attacks such as that often reflect more on the person making the attack.

If your argument has such little meat that you must use personal attacks as a prop, perhaps it’s best to sit down and be quiet.

You are not contributing to the solution; you are furthering the problem.

Inflamed rhetoric and wild unsubstantiated claims make for great sound bites and pull quotes, but they don’t actually bring solutions to the problems they pretend to address.

Rather, they serve to further drag down this country, as civility and mutual respect are tossed to the side.

Political debate in this country used to be a civilized affair. People could disagree on issues and have arguments without hating the person behind the issue.

We need to find a way back to that model - disagreement without being disagreeable.

We are a nation forged largely on compromise.

When brave men and women recognized that two factions backed by rigid ideologues would never want to find a solution, they met together and forged peaces that would bring the country together.

Let us not forget that the Miracle at Philadelphia in 1776, that new nation conceived in liberty, came about because our founding fathers put aside political differences and inflated egos for the good of creating a new nation.

Compromise and rationality, not inflamed words and angry protests, are the true children of 1776.

Judge today’s arguments by this standard: the louder they yell, the weaker their argument.