Thursday, October 26, 2017

Civil Discourse in the Age of Hostility


It Won't Be Easy


A recent study by Pew Research suggests there's an increasing partisan divide in this country. There's evidence of divisions within Republicans and Democrats not just between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican coalition is divided by immigration, global economic engagement, acceptance of homosexuality. The four groups in the Democratic coalition differ on a number of issues: While they all strongly support the social safety net, the Democratic-leaning groups are divided on government regulation of business, and government performance more generally. And like the GOP coalition, they disagree on U.S. global involvement.

Throw into this mix the partisan politics that result in a do nothing congress and the divisive nature of presidential politics and you have people who more are willing to call each other names than to look for commonalities to solve problems. According to the report the extremists on both sides are the most likely to be politically active and, therefore, have the most influence. The Pew Study says, "The power of partisanship is reflected in attitudes about Donald Trump. In the survey, conducted in June, Trump’s job ratings are more deeply polarized along partisan lines than those of any president in more than 60 years."

I think it's explained by an anonymous source as, "There's my enlightened point of view...everybody else is a brain dead zealot." There's not a whole lot of room for conversation after that, nor was anybody invited to interject anything constructive. Angry tweets laced with name calling do not lend themselves to mutually agreeable outcomes.



The Answer


Civil discourse is engagement in discourse intended to enhance understanding. ... David Gergen describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity", and suggests that it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader.

Our local paper (yes, I still read the paper), until recently, included commentary on a daily basis with columnists from the left and right. It was something I looked forward to. I enjoyed the multiple viewpoints on issues facing all of us. These were thoughtful and well-considered viewpoints which pretty much eliminates people who think the earth is flat. I think the reasoned and thoughtful discussion is important to gain a better perspective of what the other side is offering. If we just yell at each other, nothing will get accomplished.

Conservative Columnist David Brooks of the New York Times recently wrote a column about dealing with fanaticism. Brooks mentions four incidents within the past two weeks. The first was at a Nationals game. A pro Trump supporter went into a 10 minute, profanity laced tirade directed at Brooks, his wife and his son.Then he watched a debate among students about whether extremists should be allowed on campus. In Spain Brooks is told by leaders in Madrid that there was no way to have constructive discussions with separatists. Finally, Brooks was with pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit activists trying to have a civil conversation with one another. The conclusion he reaches is biblical. Love your enemy.

Brooks suggests you listen and engage. Paraphrase what is being said to show you're interested instead of attacking back. "Finally, it’s best to greet fanaticism with love for the sake of the country. As Stephen L. Carter points out in his 1998 book, Civility, the best abolitionists restrained their natural hatred of slaveholders because they thought the reform of manners and the abolition of slavery were part of the same cause — to restore the dignity of every human being."

Civility, Carter writes, “is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together.”

If you're looking for the biblical passage about loving your enemy, here are two... Luke 6:27-36  and  Matthew 5:43-48. 


Civility is not not saying negative or harsh things. It is not the absence of critical analysis. It is the manner in which we are sharing this territorial freedom of political discussion. If our discourse is yelled and screamed and interrupted and patronized, that's uncivil. -Richard Dreyfuss
.