I ask the question in the title to this post rhetorically because you would have to be deaf to not hear the sarcasm from all sides at the Lansing City Council meetings broadcast on Comcast Channel 12.
Is sarcasm a good thing or bad for the operation of city government? Are the residents of Lansing paying a price for the open warfare of words that takes place every Monday night at the city council?
Looking up the definition of sarcasm in my online Webster’s dictionary I found:
a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual.
Our city is facing dramatic and historic issues where the city budget is being pressed and will continue so for the indefinite future. It WILL affect the level of services and what citizens can expect.
There has never been a bigger need for working together than now. It’s not happening.
The answer lies not in sarcasm, but in respect for each other. It’s a problem for the public commenters and for the city council members.
The city council needs a time out chair for offenders. The level of discourse has degenerated and it continues to plummet.
Anybody agree? Disagree?
Check these comments taken from the television by two commenters. How would you rate them? Sarcastic? Productive? Non-productive?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I think one thing we must be careful about is not mixing up our responses to comments by councilpersons or the public with the recognition that democracy can be messy: the right of people to speak their minds to their elected officials can never be allowed to be diminished simply because we don’t like what they say or how they say it.
I agree some tactics are ineffective and don’t serve the intended goal of the speaker but they have that right to be ineffective and self-defeating if that is their choice.
We must be careful we don’t cross a line into censorship in pursuit of decorum and I fear greatly that is exactly what is taking place at these meetings.
To so said me:
First, I’m not sure why you need to resort to a pseudonym instead of using your real name. If you want to be taken more seriously, I invite you to come back and share your real name.
Second, freedom of speech comes with responsibility and a moral imperative. Most faith systems, including Christianity, deal with bearing false witness and with the kind of speech you use with other people. They also deal with judging other people.
Our city government is showing the effects of the toxic atmosphere in the city council meetings. It’s the residents who are getting hurt.
If you want to be heard and you want to be respected, then you have to show that to other people.
Democracy is definitely messy.
I think the cure to “negative” speech has generally been “more” speech in our country’s history of dealing with these difficult issues.
I suggest we need more people to speak out in some public square to reinforce a cultural norm of respect in the meetings.
My guess is that 95% of city residents disapprove of the method these two gentlemen repeatedly employ in these meetings, including misrepresentation of facts at times.
We also know that when people feel angry and unempowered they resort to these kinds of tactics.
We need to think creatively about creating more civil venues for dialogue, person to person.
We have the “coffee party” movement to push for civility in contrast to the methods (which differs from ideology) used by the “tea party.” Maybe we can learn from that example.
Thanks for asking these important questions.