Defusing Our Uncivil House of Dynamite

Since war is the absolute antithesis of civility, consider that within the past week millions of Americans—and millions more around the world—watched Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite, a film  dramatizing the tense 18 minutes after a missile is detected heading toward the United States. Also, factor in the 2024  Annie Jacobsen book Nuclear War: A Scenario that became a bestseller and was shortlisted for the Baillie Gifford Prize for nonfiction, vividly describing how a single nuclear strike could escalate into global catastrophe. Finally, recall that in 1983, President Ronald Reagan watched The Day After, a chilling portrayal of nuclear war’s aftermath. According to his memoirs and contemporaneous accounts, the film deeply affected him, reinforcing his urgency to collaborate with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They met and that meeting led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a landmark agreement that reduced nuclear arsenals and eased Cold War tensions.

Regan could confidently negotiate with Gorbachev, because he had a 73 percent approval rating.  That reflected the fact that Americans were fully united behind him and our national priorities. Citizens did not always agree with all national policies, but—more often than not— they were willing to communicate rationally about policies rather than personalities.

As I said in my previous Kimmel, Kirk and Us  blog post, our adversaries—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—are not just monitoring our military posture. They are watching our politics, our media, and our culture. They are measuring whether we are a nation capable of rational debate. When we descend into ridicule and polarization, we project weakness. We show ourselves as distracted, fractured, and vulnerable to intimidation. Adversaries then are emboldened, less likely to negotiate in good faith, and more likely to threaten war, even nuclear war, as Russia and North Korea recently have.  In short, American division is an invitation to catastrophe. .

All this means that rational discourse is our existential responsibility.  When speech is weaponized for political or monetary profit or division, it exacts profound costs by eroding democracy, safety, and civility.  Jimmie Kimmel and his allies parlayed punishment into profit, teaching millions how to divide and destroy America for entertainment. I again restate and emphasize that our children, along with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, are watching and learning.

By contrast, civil disagreement minimizes national threats.  It deters aggression by demonstrating resilience in disagreement. It signals strength. Respectful debate shows that we can govern ourselves without collapsing into chaos. You may feel powerless in the face of nuclear weapons, but you are not powerless in shaping the climate that influences whether conflict escalates or is contained. You can model civility. Even in disagreement, speak with respect, reject division-for-profit by refusing to reward those who monetize outrage, and by being mindful of the audience, our adversaries, and our children.

The lesson of House of Dynamite, Nuclear War: A Scenario, and The Day After is stark: in a nuclear age, our margin for error is vanishingly small. If we cannot govern our speech and disagreements with discipline, we risk undermining our individual and collective freedom.  One more historical memory is instructive: on June 16, 1858, during his famous speech at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." America is a house imperiled. Let’s defuse what now has become a political House of Dynamite.