Civility, a Lost Art?
by: Nancy Vedder-Shults on January 30th, 2010 | 13 Comments »
We just had a State of the State address here in Wisconsin as well as a State of the Union address in Washington the day before. And then on Friday President Obama met with the Republican Caucus of the House of Representatives. I have to say, I wasn’t surprised, but I was saddened by the lack of civility that ensued after each of these encounters.
Here in Wisconsin, Assembly Minority Leader Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon) retorted that Governor Doyle’s State of the State address “was a work of fiction…and Jim Doyle was trying to reinvent himself.” Is this a substantive response, one that can be used for a constructive dialogue about differences? No, it’s politically-motivated name calling.
During the State of the Union address in Washington, we saw a repeat of last year’s incivility when Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C) shouted out, “You lie!” This year it was Supreme Justice Samuel Alito who reprised last year’s lack of respect by muttering, “Not true” during the President’s remarks, shaking his head and furrowing his brow as he did so. This was an odd distraction, to say the least, since Supreme Court Justices don’t want to seem partial to issues that might some day come before them, so they usually sit silently when confronted with differences of opinion.
I guess we should be happy that the Republicans didn’t resort to the types of pranks they played during that health care speech last September. They didn’t hold up paper signs or interrupt. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made frequent gestures in response to the president’s words, and when Obama asked rhetorically, “if anyone from either party has a better approach” to health care reform, a cocky Boehner stood up and raised his hand. I would call this rude, wouldn’t you? After Obama’s address, Boehner got a little closer to the issues when he pontificated that the president was shoving his job-killing agenda down the throats of the American people. But I doubt that such rhetoric will induce a useful conversation on how to get out of our financial mess and create more employment.
And then there was last night’s confrontation between the president and the House Republican Caucus, after which Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona said, “A few times, I thought the furniture was going to float in the air. I think the man is a good speaker. His speeches are a little unconnected to the real facts on the ground.” Once again, it’s just mud slinging at the person of the president, not beginning a conversation about disagreements that might be bridged.
What we’ve seen over the past few decades is that negative campaigning works. And unfortunately for all of us, it appears that all politics these days is viewed through the lens of upcoming elections. As a result, we hear the kinds of taunts and put-downs we’ve had to endure in the last few days. Re-election becomes more important than governance. Winning the next match (only years or months away) looms larger than fixing the country.
Thomas Friedman’s NY Times editorial yesterday tackled a related topic. Criticizing our politicians and financial leaders for taking a short-term view of our situation, rather than recognizing that we’re in deep trouble, he said,
Obviously, the political and financial elites to whom we give authority often act on the basis of personal interests. But we still have a long way to go to get out of the mess we are in, and if our elites do not behave with a greater sense of the common good we could find our economy doing a double dip with a back flip.
I’m not all that old, but I can remember a time when people showed consideration for their elected officials. I think we offered them courtesy — even if we disagreed with them — because we respected the democracy they represented. Long-time senators and representatives who are retiring lately also tell us that behind the scenes it used to be different.
Democrats and Republicans may have railed at each other across the aisle, but they went out for a drink afterwards. Nowadays, that would be seen as breaking ranks.
Especially given the country’s condition — the need to make timely decisions about our economy, health care, and climate change — it’s time to insist that our elected officials start behaving in a civil manner with each other. One of the organizations that’s been working to replace the blatant disrespect of current politicians with the common courtesy we expect is the Interfaith Alliance. As they said in their most recent mailing
[W]e’re now seeing an alarming number of Americans whose disrespect of any and all elected officials is distressingly personal. This blatant disresepct that erodes effective governance cannot be tolerated, and must be replaced immediately with the courtesy due every human being — in short, with the civility we each deserve.
We should hold our elected officials to these same standards. If yours are shooting off their mouths, call them on it.
The decline of civility began more than 40 years ago, unfortunately, and has continued unabated, both among elected officials and among ordinary, everyday people. This, unfortunately, is a real downside in the movements of the late 1960′s, when the decline of civility began in earnest. In this general atmosphere of general incivility, which often spills over into personal attacks on each other, discourse is often shrill and insulting over differences, or it’s non-existent, or it often results in the loss of friends, and pits family members against each other.
Having more than enough decades behind me to look back more than 40 years, I’m in agreement with mplo. There has definitely be a decline in civility in the general population that is reflected through the public officials we have elected to represent us. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing a far better job of representing our general incivility than our common needs.
It seems to be part of the lower level aspects of human nature to resort to rude cleverness, wittiness and disrespect to demean others, rather than to elevate one’s self through education, understanding, wisdom and compassion in order to propose a higher path forward. While this has always been true, it also seems that such behavior has become more prevalent, even in the face of all the evidence that it is far from helpful and productive.
So, the question is: Who is “to insist that our elected officials start behaving in a civil manner with each other” when the elected officials are simply an extension of those who do the electing? This calls for an “upgrade” of the standards of our general population, which is obviously no small task. Especially when the momentum of the masses is obviously in the opposite direction … in a serious downhill slide.
I agree that the lack of civility, which is within the general decline of what my parents’ and prior generations called “uplift,” has eroded extensively. As one whose mother insisted that my sister and I listen to NBC announcers to hear proper grammar and diction (in our South Carolina city) I never fail to note ignorance of the language in print, radio (NPR) and visual media every day. I cringe. The local NPR station removed all classical, jazz and folk music, replaced by repetitious, ungrammatical and often inane talk.
“Dumbing down” is inadequate. My age cohorts( retired professionals, mainly academics) resort to the cliche, “A Dark Age.” Incivility is both symptom and manifestation of a, to be expected, cyclical downturn in human development and evolution. But, oh, so sad to be within the this turn of the cycle.
I don’t think it’s uncivil to point out that the overt incivility is largely on the right, at least among those who are in office. The erosion of respect for government to which the Interfaith Alliance refers is, alas, precisely what the right wants, at least if government is the sort of thing that we normally look to for things that people need and cannot provide for themselves. There is an political agenda, conscious or not, behind this incivility. How can we make this point effectively for the general audience of political discourse?
I also don’t think that it’s uncivil to point out that, in the general populace, the sort of incivility that takes the form of rude, nasty cleverness or smartness and personal attacks that’re meant to devalue, demean and delegitimize others who are of a different political/social bend and/or who have different opinions on issues, comes from both the Right AND the Left, particularly nowadays.
Re: the political nonsense: It’s one thing when indecorus responses are given to tyrants and in defense of facts, reason and calling out inappropriate policy. But when the Right is doing can hardly be termed any of that. It’s just plain bad faith. It’s interesting to note that during 8 years of an illegitimate “Presidency” there was none of the very much needed and justified indecorus response to tyrants. Which brings me to my general point: “civility” is often used as cover for classism; classist deference to the malfeasant “uppers” or “betters.”
Re: Civility: Historically “civility” has always been used as a cover by the owning/ruling classes to prevent the lowers telling truth to power. I prefer authenticity to civility in public affairs. Particularly because politics is indeed personal when you’re at the bottom; the receiving end of power’s unilateral rules and systems. For too long the owning class has lorded civility over the heads of lower class people and it’s long past time for that nonsense to be discontinued. Letting someone have their say when they “have the floor” and responding authentically when it’s your turn, for me is the very definition of civility. But when those that so often exclusively “hold the floor” demand civility from me while getting away with treating me as an unequal, I say authentic responses, which include necessary uncivility, is wholly appropriate.
Share power with me as an equal and the discourse may be heated, but it will be authentic and you will be treated also as an equal; civility. Deprive me of power-sharing, deprive of me of equality, and you deserve nothing of the sort and you’ll get none from me.
What we’re seeing from the political Right is neither civil nor justified by empirical facts. They’re oppositional-defiant because they are in fact bad-faith actors. They have no interest in power-sharing or democracy. Obama needs to be more authentic and treat them with the disrespect they justifiably deserve. It’s time for honesty and authenticity not “civility” as a cover for classist deference for those at the top.
“Obama needs to be more authentic and treat them with the disrespect they justifiably deserve. It’s time for honesty and authenticity not “civility” as a cover for classist deference for those at the top.”
Here’s a suggestion, JustJack: Don’t hold your breath.
The failure of President Obama to do the correct thing does not make it any less correct or the need for it any less. I’m with JustJack. If you run for President, you have my vote.
Jim; You’re right in that Obama’s failure(s) to do right things doesn’t make it any less correct and that there’s no less of a need for that. Unfortunately, however, given the history of the untrustworthiness of the vast majority of politicians, I believe that skepticism of Obama is in order. To be truthful, Jim and JustJack, I saw all this coming long before the last POTUS Election. Obama lost my vote when he voted for the FISA Bill and to continue funding our war on Iraq even AFTER having gone in record as opposing both of those things. He also promised to escalate, expand and extend our war on Afghanistan, which he most certainly has done, also. Obama’s positions during the pre-POTUS election Foreign Policy debate were the same as McCain’s, and, when Obama talked enthusiastically about going in and killing Al Qaeda, and essentially “going in and kicking some butt”, I turned the TV to something else. Imho, Obama’s votes for the FISA Bill, and his war votes really should’ve sounded an alarm. Obama’s nobody special–he’s just another damned politician, and I knew right away that, no matter which one of the POTUS Candidates got elected in November 2008, that we were going to be royally screwed, and betrayed. After thinking long and hard about it, I decided to do a write-in at the last POTUS Election, and I have no regrets.
I go by the following quote:
“It’s better to vote one’s conscience and to vote for someone who CAN’T win than to vote for someone who CAN win and will betray you”
Thank you all for your incisive comments. They have made me think and rethink this whole issue.
mplo, After I blogged last night, I also was thinking about how my generation — with its demonstrations, dirty language, and questioning of authority — opened up this can of uncivil worms. But over the years, most of my age cohort have found that fostering civility and respect allows for better communication and fewer unnecessary battles. That doesn’t mean that I’m completely averse to taking on a struggle. Au contraire! But at my age, I choose my battles. But the lack of respect I see in government circles seems to create more struggle, more divisiveness, at a time when we need action, not stalemate.
Jan, although I agree with mplo that both the left and the right “resort to rude cleverness, wittiness and disrespect to demean others” (as Carl describes it), I think you’re correct that the Right WANTS the “erosion of respect for government” that they propagate with their incivility. And whether it’s a conscious tactic or not, it needs to be addressed, because when people get turned off by government, they stop going to the polls, running for office, trying to make change, etc., and that leaves a larger percentage of conservative voters (because they defect in smaller numbers). How to tackle this issue is a hard question.
JustJack, your points are well-taken. I agree with you that historically civility has often been a classist cover to prevent lower classes from speaking truth to power, and often a learned deference to those in power. And I agree that the “personal is political” and “the political is personal.” And I’ve never attended a “civil,” i.e. polite or courteous demonstration. In fact, that would be an extremely strange kind of animal. We organize demonstrations when we don’t have power, are not represented in our governments, need to call attention to an issue that’s being ignored by our representatives. And demonstrations are a kind of necessary uncivility.
I hate to agree with you about the Right acting in bad faith, but it’s true more often than I want to admit. I think some of those men and women believe they’re doing what’s best for the country. But I agree — especially in light of the most recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations the rights of citizens — that sometimes they’re just acting to protect their class interests. I’m not sure that Obama CAN treat the Right with disrespect and be successful in creating the kind of change we all want to see. As soon as he uses what will be perceived as their tactics, he loses the high ground, and calls his own agenda into question. (Besides, ever since his decision on Afghanistan, I’m not sure he really is the Obama I voted for — but that’s another discussion).
“And I’ve never attended a “civil,” i.e. polite or courteous demonstration. In fact, that would be an extremely strange kind of animal. We organize demonstrations when we don’t have power, are not represented in our governments, need to call attention to an issue that’s being ignored by our representatives. And demonstrations are a kind of necessary uncivility.”
It’s agreed that there’s no such thing as a “civil” or courteous demonstration, since any demonstration(s) do impose on others to some degree or other. However, I believe that after a certain point, demonstrations can and are counterproductive. Standing, sitting or lying in the middle of a busy thoroughfare blocking traffic, illegally occupying buildings and generally preventing people from going about their daily lives and business are counterproductive and serve to alienate many people who might otherwise be willing to support the cause(s) at hand and to make people angrier. Also, blocking traffic makes it far more difficult for emergency vehicles (i. e. ambulances, fire trucks and police cars) to get through. When a seriously ill or injured person is being transported to the hospital, or when a police car or firetruck is on the way to a fire, or to deal with a crime, such as a robbery or assault in progress, time really is of the essence, and when police on duty have to move the crowds aside, that takes up valuable time that an emergency vehicle needs for getting through. Plus, when people do things like that, they often lose sight of the issue(s) at hand.
‘
That being, the best way to have demonstrations is to cord off certain streets to vehicular traffic and re-route the traffic around them, or to have demonstrations in a common or a park nearby. Just my opinion.
I agree with you, mplo. I was extremely angry when at one of the early anti-war (Viet Nam) demonstrations, some of the participants trashed nearby businesses. As far as I was concerned, this tarnished our cause. Using violence to fight violence (usually) makes no sense to me. The concerns you cite cause non-violent demonstrations to sometimes stray inadvertantly into indirect violence, so I’m with you on those issues as well.
Thank you, Nancy.