It is easy to determine when liberals are concerned about losing elections: their rhetoric for dialogue, compromise, and civility ratchets up. When they feel secure about retaining elected positions, interest in these concerns decreases dramatically.

Lee Hamilton, director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University Bloomington, has written a couple of recent columns calling for less partisanship and more compromise. Here is the latest sampling:

There are lots of ways in which members of Congress differ from the American people… All of these differences can affect congressional deliberations, but none matches another yawning gap that has opened up between Congress and average Americans: Congress, unlike the country at large, is noxiously partisan. Yes, there are partisan divisions among voters. But most Americans want to see our challenges addressed pragmatically… They want politicians to find common ground – not dwell on their differences, promote special interests or place party loyalty ahead of national progress. Americans see the value in compromise, accommodation, and civility.

Yes, “Americans see the value in compromise, accommodation, and civility” when those Americans are liberals facing loss of seats in power.

Of course, this is not descriptive of the real world at all, and even Mr. Hamilton lets slip the truth:

The partisan divide is also exacerbated by changes in the media. The 24-hour news cycle and instant analysis have forced politicians to take positions before they really have time to think them out. Social media, for its part, creates a referendum virtually instantly on every issue. Politicians need time to study and ponder issues; instead, it’s as if they face an election every day on every issue before them.

Who is it that participates in the 24-hour news cycle and social media? Why, the very Americans who, according to Mr. Hamilton, are so desperately longing for less partisanship and more compromise and civility. Are these same Americans, then, using the power of their media to expand the environment of compromise and civility? Let’s see what reality tells us.

Actor Brad Pitt’s mother made some public comments that offended the progressive value system. Writes Michelle Malkin concerning Mrs. Pitt’s letter to the editor:

In a letter to the editor for Missouri's Springfield News-Leader, Mrs. Pitt responded to another reader who argued that Christians should not support Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith. Arguing for interfaith tolerance, she praised Romney's "high morals" and "business experience." The celebrity mom urged "prayerful consideration" from fellow Christians before voting for Obama -- "a man," she pointed out, "who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."

In the spirit of “compromise, accommodation, and civility” – especially civility – the social media lit up with uncompromising incivility which Mr. Hamilton attributes to Congresspersons, not average Americans:

You want ugly? When word of Mrs. Pitt's letter spread on social media late last week, Twitter lit up with a stream of death threats, smears and slurs. My Twitter curation site, Twitchy.com, compiled just some of the vile bile aimed at Mrs. Pitt for supporting traditional values and standing up for the unborn:

"BRAD PITT'S MOM WROTE AN ANTI-GAY PRO-ROMNEY EDITORIAL. KILL THE B***H."

"Brad Pitt's mom, die"

"F*** you, Brad Pitt's mom. The gay community made your kid a star, you whacko."

"Brad Pitt's mother...what a brainless old b***h..."

"Brad Pitt's Mom Slams Obama, Gays. That stand makes her a deluded, dumba** Fascist Repuke"

"I hope Brad Pitt has been supporting his mother and decides to cut her off. What a b***h."

"Brad Pitt's mom can choke on a (redacted)."

Gotta love the civility that just gushes forth from those practitioners of “repressive tolerance” - the residents of the land of left-believe.

Remember, the TEA pot is simmerin’.