VALDOSTA — A civil discourse on America’s current political climate was the goal of a Tuesday night forum at Valdosta State University.

Hosted by the Mary Turner Project, “Exploring the Political Climate Since the Election of President Obama” sought to break-down various hot topics that have arisen since President Barack Obama took office.

Panelists included civic leaders, Democratic and Republican representatives, academics and a local government official.

Dr. Mark George, a sociology professor at VSU and member of the Mary Turner Project, opened the forum by describing its purpose.

“We want to talk in a constructive way and hear one another instead of shouting and screaming at one another,” George said. “This is a dialogue about where we are as a nation.”

Sue Bailey served as the moderator for the forum and presented the panelists with three different questions, all pertaining to Obama’s presidency and the nation’s political climate.

The first question centered on the two political parties’ combative nature since the inauguration of Obama and how that affects the country.

Dr. James LaPlant, associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of political science said the nasty tone portrayed recently is nothing new in the political arena.

In the 1800s, politicians’ wives were accused of lascivious behavior and the parentage of their children were brought into question, he said.

Partisan behavior gives rise to knowledge about issues and those that adopt a particular ideology are more likely to vote, LaPlant said.

That said, LaPlant said, he does not advocate the extreme behavior exhibited recently in the name of partisanship.

Laverne Lewis Gaskins, attorney and member of the Democratic Party of Georgia, said that no matter a person’s political affiliation, everyone must remember that the United States is still one nation.

The purpose of a democracy is to engage in civil debate, she said.

“We should hold elected officials to that standard,” Gaskins said. “They should remember that America comes first.”

Bailey’s next question to the panel asked what is achieved when the president and some of his policies are referred to as radical or socialist.

LaPlant said to use the term socialist as an argument against a policy or politician in America is asinine.

“Labeling someone a socialist is not a way to have an honest debate,” he said.

LaPlant said that name calling is a way to end a debate on the real issue before it even begins.

“You can’t refute someone by calling them a name,”  said Dr. Ari Santas, professor of philosophy.

Patrick Cork, an attorney and member of the Georgia Republican Party, struggled to get a hold on how best to answer the question.

In the end, Cork said that labeling someone or using symbolism probably does not facilitate a legitimate discussion.

Dr. Calvin Walker, associate professor, Office of Academic Student Instructional Support and the Department of African American Studies, said in politics there has always been an us versus them mentality.  “It's hard to treat someone bad if you see them as an equal,” he said.

Now that Democrats have control, it is the Republicans' job to make them look bad. When President George W. Bush was in office, the Democrats used different things to exploit differences, he said.

City of Valdosta Mayor Pro Tem and At-Large Councilman John Eunice took a more personal approach to answer the question concerning the use of applying terminology to push against an idea or person.

Several weeks ago, in a letter to the editor published in The Valdosta Daily Times, Eunice said he and other members of the council were called communists.

As a member of a military family and someone who has lived a great deal of his life in Valdosta, Eunice said he did not believe himself to be a communist.

In the letter to the editor, the writer disagreed with zoning regulations within the City of Valdosta, Eunice said.

The zoning regulations will need to be studied further and looked at but Eunice said the issue will be addressed regardless of the terminology used.

Percy Chastang, a coordinator at the Office of Adolescent Health and a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Board of Directors said the name calling is a part of political theater.

“If a person wants a solution they have got to have an honest assessment of the problem,” Chastang said. “With this they are not being honest in stating what the problem is and how to find the solution.”

The last question of the evening centered around race and how the race of the president factors into the political divide.

LaPlant said a lot of the different movements against Obama, the birthers, calling him a Marxist or socialist or the antichrist have an undercurrent of race.

But, if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, LaPlant said he believes a lot of the same terminology would be used against her.

“It's not always about race when a person criticizes the president with legitimate concerns,”  he said. Santas said he believes the election of Obama has led white people to be less overt with their racism.

“They’ve started using code words, Satan, Muslim, thinly veiled comments,” he said.

Though many on the panel agreed race and racism have become a forefront issue since Obama’s election, Cork disagreed.

“I don’t believe that the president has been the victim of racism,” Cork said.

When he was elected everyone knew he was African American, Cork said.