The age of disrespect: the U.S.'s uncivil war

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Sept, 1995 by Gerald F. Kreyche

COMEDIAN Rodney Dangerfield has built his career on complaining, "I can't get no respect!" As if to reinforce this, a Hollywood association recently declared that Dangerfield was ineligible to enter a movie star awards contest. Chagrined, he pointed out his various successful films, but to no avail. The question that faces him and nearly everyone today is, "Who can earn respect, and how does one go about doing so?" Even a casual glance at our culture reveals that respect is all but a thing of the past.

The dictionary description of respect is clear: "To feel or show esteem for; to honor. To show consideration for; avoid violation of; treat with deference." The meaning closely is related to reverence, which implies love, awe, or veneration.

However, to what or whom in the world does this apply? Singer Sinead O,Connor egregiously insulted the Pope on national television. One may disagree with the views of the Pontiff, but ought to recognize that his office has had a high religious and political place in history for nearly 2,000 years. Her actions well may have been motivated as an attention-getter (in show business, there is no such thing as bad publicity), but still, they were highly disrespectful.

The deposed Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, insulted those in the pro-life movement by claiming that they thought all fetuses were little babies. The anti-abortionists accused her of decrying their moral high ground--namely, a reverence for life.

Jack Kevorkian--Dr. Death, as the media calls him--also is accused of not having respect for life. He wants society to be allowed to assist in the suicide of those who choose this as an alternative to continued suffering from severe medical conditions. Kevorkian argues that it is in the interest of human dignity for persons to have this control over their own deaths. Yet, upon reflection, all life--no matter how misshapen, how depraved, how deformed, how tenuous--is a victory over nothingness. This evolutionary fact should not be taken lightly.

Millions of late-night TV watchers are amused by Jay Leno's unrelenting attacks on Pres. Clinton, the elected leader of our nation. No public figure reasonably can object to being poked fun at once in a while, but Leno's onslaught is incessant and increasingly biting and personal. Whatever his opinion of the occupant, he is ridiculing the Office of the President.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, political cartoonists are doing even more damage to public confidence in government officials. They may consider themselves watchdogs, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to vent their spleen unceasingly with professional venom. Somewhere, there must be the exercise of prudence in what they portray and how they do it. Although most think of Gary Trudeau's "Doonesbury" as a comic strip, it is among the most negative of all political cartooning. Trudeau has become so vitriolic that a number of newspapers have dropped it.

Life in government has its personal rewards, but it also has personal sacrifices that so often go unrecognized. It is no wonder that fewer and fewer talented people want to serve the government when to respect is given to political office. Despite what we read or see on TV, there still are statesmen and stateswomen who are more than politicians. One can't help but feel sorry for Clark Clifford, an advisor to many presidents who, in his old age, somehow got c aught up in the BIA banking scandal. It is unfair, but many view this act as having vitiated all the pro bono work he has done for government.

Disrespect could not be more rampant than it presently is against the courts, the legal system, and lawyers. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt began this by trying to politicize and stack the Supreme Court so that it would see things his way. The courts have been going downhill ever since, more so as the excesses of affirmative action have taken over everything. A case in point is the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. There forever will be a cloud of suspicion over both that has hurt their integrity and that of the highest court in the land. The scandal need never have occurred were qualifications for the position the sole concern. The highly respected (in legal circles, at least) Robert Bork possessed those to an eminent degree.

Disrespect for the courts that administer and interpret the law leads directly to disrespect for the legal system itself. Abuses are too abundant to deny. Murderers often go scot-free and the monied who commit white-collar crime often are undetected, yet those who smoke a marijuana cigarette may be incarcerated for years. It is the public's impatience and perception of rampant crime that provoked minimum mandated sentencing and the "three strikes and you're out" legislation. Both are examples of bad law, allowing judges no room for discretion. By definition, jurisprudence involves prudence, and when that is not allowed, the law and the nation suffer for it.

One wonders if the law ever will recover its quiet dignified respect, given the raucous court cases of Rodney King and the police officers involved and the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots. The public has the distinct impression that the cases were decided before any jury even was picked. Once racism was injected into the equation, politics entered the arena.