Give me civility or give me death
Read Time:4 Minute, 15 Second
Political and personal civility is dying in America
Outraged politician—and citizens—must understand civility is the first step to strengthening our country.
If you live in a major metropolis, the minutest demonstration of common courtesy and civility seems non-existent. When’s the last time a person held a door open for you in a public building or cut you off in traffic without signaling? I’ve seen cars pull in front of 40-ton buses so many times, I wonder why there aren’t more fatal accidents. Don’t even think of checking to make sure there are no cars speeding through an intersection on a red light before some asshole in a Hummer honks you out of existence. I understand that turn signals are no longer required on automobiles.
Even the hard right is beginning to write about the problems that arise in our increasingly uncivil society. In Newsmax, a right-wing news site, Herbert London describes the increasing boorish behavior as: an impoverishment of language skill. But mostly, I believe, it is a habit, a reflex that suggests civil discourse is unnecessary.
London further states Then there is language contamination. So many people I meet think that it is appropriate to use the “f-bomb” as an adjectival expression for any deeply felt emotion. Sometimes I think that without that word, expression wouldn’t be possible. In part, this is the egalitarian spirit gone wild.
Whether American civility is noticeable by both conservative and liberals is questionable. Fruitless, angry debates that include personal invectives solve nothing. Although we may not agree with London’s political position, his observation parallels George Orwell’s concern about limiting language which leads to limiting thought, as reflected in Politics and the English language.
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought… Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
A common agreement of “civil dialogue” is critical before we can work together to strengthen the country. Of late, U.S. politicians pay scant attention to gentility and dignity. Brawls, knee-jerk reactions, and hatred increasingly characterize American society. The ugly, unnecessary invectives that increasingly arise among different groups are tearing the world apart. Civility in Politics offers some ideas that can set a framework for more fruitful discussions.
- Entails agreed-upon definitions;
- Is not a personal attack. People often link their self-worth to their political perspective;
- Does not mean “give up, but compromising in a way that leads to constructive solutions;
- Does not mean singing Kumbaya around a campfire.
- Is not detachment from real issues.
As voters in a Democracy, we are responsible to show politicians that we value solutions above excuses and political diversion. Accordingly, we bear a responsibility to become active in our communities, learn about issues that concern us on a local level, and the ability to walk away when another person refuses to listen, focusing solely on their anger.
Most importantly, civility means one’s ability to understand varying shades of gray. We must refuse to buy into a black-and-white, good-versus-evil mindset politicians and citizens use to have us turn against family and so they get our votes on Election Day.
Here at Mad Mike’s America, we attempt to promote civil discussion and exchange of various view points. A quick search of the term civility renders numerous definitions. Allowing politicians to define civility in the dim light of the political blame game is fruitless if American society desires a more egalitarian exchange. A general agreement among people of all different perspectives must first agree on an established definition of the word “civil.”
Here are some terms to avoid which can forward the goal of civility.
Rabid ReaganitesObamaclypse
| Raging Conservatives | Raging Liberals |
| Uneducated Conservatives | Smug Liberal Elitists |
| Deceit/Deception | Deceit/Deception |
| Lies/Liars | Lies/Liars |
| Extremists, Reactionaries | Socialists, Progressives |
| Extreme Right wing-nuts | Extreme Left wing-nuts |
| Conservative Conspiracy | Left-Wing Conspiracy |
| Fascists | Godless Commies |
| Nazi, Hitlerite, Fascist | Communist, Castroite |
| Far Right Wing, Reich Wing | Godless Far Left |
| Racists | Race-Baiters |
| Right-Wing Fanatics | Left-Wing Lunatics |
| Cristian Fundamentalist Crackpots | Godless Baby-Killers, Murderers |
| Rabid-Right, Lockstep Right | Unrealistic Left-wingnuts |
| McCarthyites | Pinkos, Communoids |
| Corporate polluters, Corporate shills | Kyoto Krackpots |
| Warmongers | Unpatriotic |
| Imperialists, occupiers, corporate shills | Isolationists, cut and runners |
| Neo-con fascists | Tree huggers, tree hugging hippies |
| Tea Baggers, Pee Party | Cowardly anti-Americans |
| Murderous Gun Owners | Anti-Second Amendment |
These are just a few examples. You can probably come up with others.
How would you define civility and what steps will you take in your personal life in an effort to promote a more civil exchange with others who disagree with you? Do you believe people of differing opinions can reach an amicable debate through civility?
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
I’m very glad I live in a place like West Virginia. We have our weak points, but common courtesy isn’t one of them.
It is difficult to be civil when the fall-back position of a person with whom you’re debating is to “agree to disagree,” when your argument is based on historical/political/ mathematical fact, and theirs is based on opinions, theirs or some one else’s, that can be shown to be erroneous. When such a one figuratively (and, sadly, sometimes literally) digs in their heels, closes their eyes, begins rythmically shaking their head from side to side while sticking their fingers in their ears and humming ‘America, the Beautiful,’ it’s hard not to go for the zinger to get them to re-engage. It is, though, mostly fruitless at that point.
Excellent point, Mr. Scott! As damaging as the general vitriol that characterizes the current American political scene is candidates’ treatment of facts as irrelevant, with the assurance of blind acceptance from their supporters. It’s the schoolyard bully’s means of getting his way: whoever yells the loudest or punches the hardest “wins.” A “debate” then becomes no more than a public spectacle, with the shoutdown being the equivlanent of a “smackdown.”
I think the retort that spelled the end of rational political discourse in America was Reagan’s famous response to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential debate, “There you go again!” = no facts necessary as long as the audience is amused. Score one for the Gipper.
Given such public standards, it’s no wonder that people with entrenched, insular viewpoints feel no need to invoke any solid data to back up the positions they take in ordinary “discussions.” Why should they?
You nailed that Wendy thanks!!
Good thing you agree, Bro. Those who attempt to out-think Wendy do so at their peril. Brava, Ms. Addams.
Having expressed some understanding about why so many people seem unable to “agree to disagree,” let me just point out that I don’t like incivility either. My Mama raised me to be polite and thoughtful, and I try hard to be decent toward other people. As a pedestrian in Los Angeles, I’ve become all too accustomed to rudeness and bullying (that Hummer’s determined to flatten my feet, Dorothy), but I still get surprised and offended by the general lack of respect and basic humanity around me. Sometimes I just think, “What’s the world coming to?”
…that Hummer’s determined to flatten my feet, Dorothy. Civility to pedestrians and other drivers. Hmmm. What an unusual comment.
Another thing that can make civil discourse challenging–for me at least–is the tendency to blur the distinction between people and their opinions, and to take criticism as a personal attack (which–let’s face it–it often is in our present climate of anger and hysteria).
I have to be careful not to fall into the extremist’s trap of thinking, “This person disagrees with me on an issue that is deeply important to me–so deeply important that I personally identify with it–so this person must be opposed to my very existance and that of all the things I value.” I automatically interpret that as a threat.
Of course, I’m not alone in this “knee-jerk” reaction; in a fundamentally insecure society like ours at present, this sort of mindset seems to feed on itself (with some help from the demagagues who would profit from stoking the flames), further polarizing the community. It’s hard to think rationally when you’re angry and scared.
Dorothy, I really try to be civil in most of my posts and comments but I find it very difficult sometimes. When I find myself in discussions with those who are dumb as posts, do I really have to be civil to a post? You know, like your Bachmann = batshit.
It’s hard as hell, Lazer. Sometimes the line between civility and incivility is real fuzzy.
Bachmann = Batshit is not uncivil. It’s fact. 😀
Well I am glad you cleared that little bit of confusion up for me Dorothy. :))
It is difficult to be civil to closed-minded people and those who won’t change their mind or the subject. Usually a trait of the hard left and the far right.
Holte, I couldn’t agree more. Fanaticism of any stripe is not civil. Well, I can dream, can’t I?
It’s like Martin Buber’s I-thou, I-it distinction. As soon as I perceive someone as an ‘it’ I have downgraded that person to something less than human, and it is awfully tempting to be uncivil to an ‘it’. That is an easy trap to fall into, and to stay out of it requires an attentive consciousness, which is not inherently easy to do. I struggle with that every day.