Two nights ago, President Obama did something extraordinary.  He gave the best speech of his presidency to date.  He rose above the politics of the day and asked us all to do the same.  And he gave a healing sermon-like talk that was truly dedicated to the victims of the Tucson massacre, that celebrated their lives and uniqueness, and that reminded us all of the best that is in us even as we were contemplating the worst.  

Commentators from the left and the right have praised the speech with near-unanimity, so what the President asked for – a healing of the political discourse – he actually got, at least in the immediate response.  Let’s hope the trend continues. 

It prompts me to ask the question – could we in fact transform our public discourse to make it more civil?  What would that look like?  Would it be any less effective?  Would it trample on our free speech? 

I think the mistake that we have made in the United States is to confuse free speech with license.  In order not to constrict the former, we have settled on the latter.  But that’s a simplistic and literal way to think about free speech.  The Founding Fathers were bent on preserving the right to debate politically charged issues when they enshrined “the freedom of speech, or of the press,” in the First Amendment, not the license to utter obscene rants or to call elected officials liars without proof. 

I think what we need is not to lower our standards for what passes for discourse but rather to raise them.   The Internet gives everyone a voice, and that is a good thing – up to a point.  I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days when three TV networks, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, and a handful of other media outlets controlled the political discourse.  But if political leaders, bloggers, and pundits on left and right began insisting on elevating the national conversation, it would happen – and no one’s right to free speech would be affected. 

We can all do our bit.  Don’t read, promulgate, or write pieces that promote unmitigated hate.  Avoid the obscene rants and the lunatic fringe.  Have a working assumption that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re immoral or insane.  And take the time to listen — as honestly and respectfully as you want to be listened to in turn — to all the other voices that make up our unruly, difficult democracy. 

And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us. 

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. 

Imagine — imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future.  She had been elected to her student council.  She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful.  She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model.  She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want to live up to her expectations.   I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it.  I want America to be as good as she imagined it.   All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.