TIME TO STOP SHOUTING

By Michael Kramer

BILL CLINTON MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY LAST WEEK, AND GOOD FOR HIM. ON Friday, after the arrest of one suspect in the Oklahoma City horror, the President was asked if the "constant drumbeat in recent years that government is bad, that government is the enemy" may have contributed to the tragedy. For a President who has been attacked personally and mercilessly by his opponents, it must have been tempting to denounce those who use character assassination as a political tool. Instead he patiently and properly refused to speculate "about the motives or atmosphere until the investigation is complete."

If they agree on nothing else, Big Government liberals and conservative devolutionists view national security and the preservation of domestic order as Washington's two primary roles. There is also a third and equally important federal function on which any public figure can help instruct Americans: the role of civil discourse in a democracy.

But civil discourse is an oxymoron in the U.S. today. Can't the prevalence of ad hominem attacks and demonization in our politics be seen as having helped inspire last Wednesday's insanity? The dots need not be connected for some connections to be considered.

Last month the National Rifle Association ran full-page ads denouncing the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for a "tyrannical record of misconduct and abuse of power.'' Assuming those responsible for Oklahoma City have ties to the gun-toting "citizen militias" whose leaders advocate armed conflict against governmental "intrusion,'' shouldn't the N.R.A. reconsider at least the tone of such heated calls to arms?

Newt Gingrich recently praised incendiary language as a key to winning elections. Use words like "liar'' and "traitor'' to attack Democrats, he said. Should anyone who values honest debate condone such advice? Is it much wonder that the unhinged can't make the distinction between mere name calling and damning opponents as the embodiment of evil?

There is of course no straight line between any of this and Oklahoma City--just as there was no straight line between the 1960s antiwar movement and the left-wing terrorists who robbed banks and killed cops in the name of patriotism. But didn't "Hey, hey, L.B.J., how many kids did you kill today?" encourage more extreme expressions of division?

If the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing really view government as the people's enemy, the burden of fostering that delusion is borne not just by the nut cases who preach conspiracy but also to some extent by those who erode faith in our governance of America in the pursuit of their own ambitions. Inflamed passions produce unintended consequences. In the effort to get attention, to startle, to motivate, a crucial self-control is lost. The gulf between hyperbolic words and last week's despicable treachery is not all that great.

Everyone is obliged to demand a more honest and a more civil discourse. But those who seek to lead bear the largest responsibility. Both the right and the left need to lower their voices. Bill Clinton taught an important lesson last week. While others jumped to condemn foreign terrorism, which only fueled passions, the President, almost alone, refused to rush to judgment. That defined him not only as relevant, but as a leader.