Why Americans fight over civility

As shown by your poll numbers, Americans consistently show they are unhappy with the divisiveness present in today's political dialogue, yet many political elites -- representatives elected by the people -- insist on incivility. Aren't those we elect supposed to represent OUR interests? Where is the disconnect, and why do we (as the public) allow it to go on?

You also show that incivility in public discourse has grown significantly over the years, but why? Could it be that polarized viewpoints are the ones that best sell? The ones that the media picks up on the most? The opinions that most easily make a name for themselves?

University of Michigan scholar Dr. Wayne Baker is also blogging about our culture of incivility all this week in OurValues, his daily online magazine on American values and ethics at:

http://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues

Jones...you are fabulously wrong.

Conservatives do NOT argue that social context doesn't matter. Rather, they argue that social context is driven by moral standards of right and wrong. They argue that if absolute moral standards give way to relativism then that society will lose its moral foundation and become increasing violent. However, they also argue that moral standards of right and wrong are dealt with through personal decisions coupled with preaching/teaching from people of integrity and in positions of authority.

Conservatives argue that liberals have rejected absolute standards of right and wrong and have substituted pragmatic, psuedo-scientifically driven standards which ultimately have already lost the battle for the soul of the country. Therefore, liberals fall back on legalisms and multiplying laws to attempt to control the genie they let out of the bottle when they argued against absolute moral standards.

So, yes, conservatives reject liberal attempts to control society by legalisms. However, conservatives agree that a peaceful society is corporate in nature, that peace must be taught society wide. But that again is where we part ways. Teach absolute moral standards in your schools/universities and if individuals will choose to submit to those moral standards peace will return. Reject absolute moral standards and no multiplication of laws will ever be sufficient to secure the peace.

Legalism NEVER works. It only produces resentment and rebellion at the robot-ification of morality. Appealing to the heart of each individual to choose righteousness and its blessings is the only hope for a humane society.

In response to 1bmffwb:

Most (Not all) of the things you mentioned, were peacefully done. The rhetoric in some instances was wrong on both sides say for instance the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. To call the soldiers the names they did and disrespect their service was wrong period. The right to protest it was and is constitutionaly protected. Same for the sit-ins done during the civil rights movement. The violence during most if not all of those was perpetrated by the counter-protesters and local and sometimes state government (maybe federal too). All these forms of protest are constitutionaly protected. So to say that they are wrong to protest is infringing on their constitutional rights. Also, a stagnate society is a dying society. Life is dynamic and ever changing. We either change and update our laws to coincide with the world we live in or go the way of past nations and countries that were great once but slowly faded into history or into a place of little importance in the world.

With this tornado of Tucson going on we zero in on one event. Leading up to this event is over 40 years of civil disobedience by liberals. Maybe justified in some cases, but disobedience none the less. Riots, sit ins, buildings overtaken, ROTC offices vandalized, bombings, ship attacks on fishing vessels, gay and lesbian demonstrations, abortion demonstrations, anti Nixon, REAGAN, BUSH demonstrations, interruption of speakers on college campuses, college professors asking for disruptions and demonstrations, anti business demonstrations, and anti war demonstrations.

My point is all of these charged up people raised the rhetoric. The silent conservative majority sat passively by while all these things occurred. The tea party is the only conservative demonstration that I can ever think of. Liberals control the vast majority of the media, including the Washington Post. Those that control the media control the propaganda machine. Brainwashing the people, who do not look deeper, or wider is what influences the people. The liberals and the media are causing the hatred. Conservatives are trying to maintain traditions, not set new policy that changes the way we live. People have a basic sense of right or wrong, and even against the propaganda machine there will be those that know instinctively how to behave. People turn against liberals because of the overwhelming manner in which they act.

>> "Conservatives largely reject this claim, emphasizing that individuals, not social context, cause violence. They tend to see people as rational individuals operating largely free of social constraints."

I don't know what this writer's background is, but it is definitely not political theory!!! The very DEFINITION of liberalism is a worldview that sees "people as rational individuals operating largely free of social constraints." (No, this is not a disputed point. Open any political theory textbook.)

The fact is that there has been far more violent and vitriolic rhetoric from the left in recent years than the right. Conservatives don't disagree that such rhetoric is harmful; what they reject are attempts by the left to intimidate and muzzle those on the right.

For example, crosshairs are used on maps all the time, and nobody on the left would think anything of it if it wasn't coming from a conservative. When, in the same election cycle, a Democrat ran an ad with crosshairs superimposed on his opponent's CHEST -- that was ok! And when Obama said he'd "bring a gun to the fight" that was ok! And when liberal commentators and members of Congress called for the assassination of Bush, that was ok! Something is very, very wrong here.)

And, as reading this article, what is ommited for political purposes are the words of Obama, "get in your neighbor's face and use a gun if you have to." What about Palosi? "If the wall is too high we will parachute in, but we will get this bill passed." Then she says, "we will ahve to pass the bill so we can all read about what is in it."

If your hand offends you, cut it off. I might pass you the hatchet if I have a hand left to do so, should be the message about when it comes to the left preaching about civility. Yet, just more finger pointing and deflamation at a time of reflection. No lessons learned here, just more hate mongering.

I had the incredible honor of being born to Greatest Generation parents in 1963
(my parents were born in 1918). Needless to say, as a child I spent a lot of time with the "old folks." So I must comment...civility, or as it was called in my house, manners, was not a Democratic or Republican teaching, it was a family and cultural expectation. My family had both Dems. & Reps., both were quick to tell me no when I was not "using my manners"...along with my teachers, neighbors, store personnel, and any other adult in my world within eyesight and earshot of me.

I think this is the point that is being missed...what we have lost in the past 10 years is manners. Somewhere along the line we all decided that we were a victim of the other person's beliefs and actions. With this victim lense we have lost our sense of personal responsibility and awareness of how our actions affect others. "It's "their" fault my life is bad", and I'm going to yell and scream and say mean things until they stop!" It's not working.

I believe it's important to be aware of how our lives touch and influence others and how others influence and affect us. That said, I also believe ultimately we are responsible for our self and our lives. We have all become so selfish in our fight for "right" we have lost the awareness of what is real and what is really happening. We don't know how to take care of ourselves while being respectful to others.

Take abortion. While pro-life and pro-choice camps battle, countless girls are raped by friends and family (the ave. age of incest begins at 4 yrs of age). Additionally, one of the fastest growing businesses in the world is the sex trade, specifically sex slavery of women, especially girls under 18 yrs. of age.

What does sexual abuse have to do with abortion? Prostitutes have a large number of abortions, it's how they keep "working". Girls who are sexually abused have a tendency to act out their trauma in sexual ways, thus they tend to become pregnant in greater numbers and at younger ages. With over 1 in 3 girls sexually abused by age 18, imagine how many abortions result from this abuse, directly and indirectly?

And then imagine the opposing abortion camps coming together to stop the abuse and the sexual slavery. Imagine how many abortions could be prevented. And imagine what it would take to make this possible.

It will take coming together. And to do that, it means we must agree to disagree in a respectful manner and work towards what we can agree on...no more abuse. In other words, it means we must be civil...we must use our manners.

The Greatest Generation didn't always agree, but they knew without each other they would be lost, both during the Depression and the follwing wars. Unfortunately, as we lose these wonderful wisdom keepers, we are losing the wisdom of manners. It's a history lesson we can't afford to forget.

The writer surmised,

"Conservatives largely reject this claim, emphasizing that individuals, not social context, cause violence. They tend to see people as rational individuals operating largely free of social constraints."

I think conservative views on illegal drugs show this is not true. Conservatives have long argued that drugs cause violence, when we know it is drug laws create profits, the drug profits create violence and the violence creates jobs for conservatives.

If conservatives truly believe the way the writer has stated, then conservatives would not argue for drug laws.

It doesn't matter who has done what in the past. No progress will ever be made if we never get beyond "But he did it too" like a bunch of little kids. It is not necessary for the shooter's actions to be the direct result of anyone's vitriolic speech and it is not necessary for the shooter to belong to any particular party or side for people to say "In light of these events, crosshairs on a map and talk of gunfights is in poor taste. Let me try to do better."
I made fun of someone at work. It turned out he had cancer and he passed away. I didn't know he was sick and I certainly didn't cause it, but I regret what I said and I am more careful now. That doesn't mean I don't have free speech, it means I am not a jerk.

"Civility", my foot. "Civility" is the new code word for 'censorship'. And we all know that the MSM will be 'civilizing' conservatives all day every day while completely ignoring the vile attacks of their chosen ones, the Demoncrats. Just like WaPo and its ilk are completely ignoring the soaring gasoline and energy costs and their attendant goods - - unlike what they did when Bush was in office. Lucky for us that we have the internet where we can see the crisis actually being addressed in England.

Jon Switzer
That post summed up the left's reaction to what's happening as well as any I've seen.

Bravo

Isn't it part of the leftist peace movements training that they should agitate violently for peace? Isn't this part of what union bosses have done through the years? This isn't new.

Posted by: jonswitzer |

Least we forget: "Peace is a Communist plot"

What's good for Halliburton is good for the Country.

Before Atwater, my father's GoP didn't pimp poor old Jesus for divisive wedge issues. Neither did the Democrats. They railed about the godless Communists and who was soft on them.

The ugly discourse is a backlash at the religious right whose theocratic designs include Huckabee's of throwing over the Constitution for his version of "God's Standards" Liberals see a threat from the right to take away religious and other Bill of Rights freedoms and they won't roll over and cave in to the bullies who delusionally believe they will.

Fox News and the denizens of the internet has piled on by demonizing, parroting
"muslim-mexican-gay-bedwetting-liberal-marxist-communist-socialist-nonbeliever" like some adolescent school yard bullies who terrorize the other kide by calling them names.

Atwater brought it on, Rove is his disciple and Fox is Rove's propaganda organ. They will reap what they sew. Maybe the nation already has.

I've had it with the hate-mongers in BOTH parties. Hatred is a frikkin' cottage industry now.

It's time to restore sanity to our debate. I'm a moderate and I have voted for people in both parties, but this is not about party. It's about the future of the country.

Best way to stop the angry rhetoric? Stop listening.

http://www.youtube.com/stevedoeslife#p/u/0/wZyfCiTmMxk

DWIGHTCOLLINS, so typical a conservative.

List all the ugly crap the democrats are doing, enhance it with a bunch more ugly crap they aren't actually doing - then claim on the one hand that you're doing none of it, followed quickly by a claim you have the right to do it too since the other side is doing it.

Typical, this is what makes you conservatives so ugly to the rest of us. It's not just the ugly crap you're doing, it's the freaking hypocrisy of claiming to be superior to them.

You're the same people Dwight boy, the same kind of supercilious ideologue, the only difference is which direction you lean when you throw the sht.

you forgot...
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife. . . We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose a-s-s to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

JONSWITZER, you and your republican reich think everybody who isn't one of you is a liberal. Well you couldn't be more wrong.

For one thing there's large numbers of libertarians who are not at all like you, and certainly not like the liberals.

There's a huge number of moderates, both caring and indifferent, who find you and your kind to be as destructive, if not more, than the liberals you love to hate.

Frankly, we're sick of both of you. That that you cretins keep throwing sht at each other and never stop is making us despise you equally.

Then we see you here, claiming some kind of moral superiority, blaming the liberals for the same kind ugly tactics and strategies you're using on them ....

You are disgusting. If you didn't have the liberals to hate you wouldn't exist.

So long as we have fundamentalists religious dogma governing so many . . . peaceful co-existence is a fantasy.

My sense is that the left has used this language for years (ever since say, Nietchze, Marx, Hegel advocating the violent overthrow of the bourgoisie). It is only in the last 20 years that Conservatives have woken up and realized that the left's intense union tactics, heavy handed "peace" violence and media monopoly was changing the social climate. As a result, they realized that there is a social responsibility we individuals have to speak up and be heard and refuse to surrender to state imposed legalisms.

So, now we have a robust debate and the left is suddenly the victim of violence when they have advocated it for at least a century now?

In all of the bringing of guns to Tea Parties and such, there has been zero violence done by the right. The media has blamed Austin, TX airplane crashes, Kentucky suicides, Pittsburgh shootings, NY immigration center shootings, Holocaust Museum shootings, Times Square bombings, St. Louis Congressman firebombings...they have blamed all these on the right, when in fact in every situation it was either lefty loonies or else apolitical loonies. Those are the facts.

So, perhaps the left is so concerned about violent language because they know that leftist ideology produces more crazy loonies than any other contemporary ideology out there.

Is it out of bounds to recognize that just about ever "peace" rally held in the last ten years has erupted into violence, smashing windows, vandalism and destroying public property...not to mention getting into big fights with the police? Isn't it part of the leftist peace movements training that they should agitate violently for peace? Isn't this part of what union bosses have done through the years? This isn't new.

The reason why many people don't believe that Civility matters is because these are same people who are highly Uncivil to others, and when they are uncivil, they expect those who are civil to just stand there and allow these uncivil people to treat them any kind of way, no matter how rude and disrespectful they are.

What these uncivil people fail to realize is that not every civil person that they are screaming at, lying about, and trying to run over is going to tolerate their abusive, hostile, and angry behavior.

Being uncivil may be the norm for many people, but it's NOT the norm for many more.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
--Euripides

Hysteria is a state of mind that is impervious to reason or new information. In fact, the calmness of others can make an hysterical person even more frenzied.

Once hysteria becomes a mass phenomenon, it is extremely dangerous, creating riots, lynch mobs and waves of destruction. Orson Welles demonstrated the power of hysteria with his famous "War of the World's" broadcast that spread panic throughout New Jersey. As a responsible broadcaster, Welles apologized.

Today's broadcasters spread panic, hysteria and paranoia across much larger audiences without the slightest bit of remorse. When our own president promoted a "clash of civilizations" that sounded much like "War of the Worlds," the media ran with it, adding graphics and a soundtrack. He continued to up the ante with threats of an "Islamofascist caliphate" and suggested that without torturing captives, untold numbers of Americans would have died in ghastly terrorist attacks.

Jared Loughner was already paranoid and delusional, but nothing he believed conflicted with what our "leaders" had said in mass broadcasts:

--Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn., who now sits on the House Intelligence Committee, urged a boycott of the Census because "Acorn" was engaged in some kind of nefarious conspiracy that she couldn't quite define.

--Rep. Louie Gomert, R-Texas, announced on CNN that he had secret evidence that terrorists were conspiring to have babies in the U.S. who would grow up to become suicide bombers.

--Rush Limbaugh said this week that the call for civility was a Democrat conspiracy to control our speech and outlaw dissent, which sounds very much like what Loughner believed.

--Glenn Beck said that an elderly Jewish financier and Nazi refugee George Soros was head of an international conspiracy (a "puppetmaster") to gain control of the nations of the world and that he abetted Nazis in rounding up Jews for the Holocaust. How will he take over the world? Through an obscure charity called the Tides Foundation, a suggestion that triggered a gunman's plan to attack the foundation.

Paranoid schizophrenics rarely need any media encouragement to act out on their delusions, but trying to make the whole nation delusional is a crime against humanity, even if it is not actually written into law.

When we become hysterical, someone is making money off of it. Either war profiteers, broadcasters or con artists who are winning election to high office and selling favors to their corporate masters.

The damage done by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the other demogogues of the airwaves is much greater than the massacre in Tucson. Just look at Iraq.

@ckubik53: Because Nidal Hassan and Faisal Shahzad both proclaimed themselves Soldiers of Allah and admitted they committed (or tried to) mass violence in the name of Islam.

Neither Jared Loughren or anyone else has claimed to be a soldier of Sarah Palin yet.

I am struck by the strength of our collective belief that eliminationist, violent rhetoric & symbols broadcast on Al Jazeera should be taken very seriously and can be connected to violent attacks against Americans. Yet, when hate speech, demonizing others and violent imagery is broadcast on a daily basis from home-grown sources, we are asked to turn away and pretend there is no connection and no cause for alarm.

A good portion of the current growling by Americans and the sudden use of the word civility, can be laid at the feet of Obama. Not only are his actions and words uncivil, he is the most divisive, arrogant, racist occupant of the white house that Americans have ever had the misfortune to witness

The philosophical and theological roots of our political discourse are indeed central to our current debates (and they always have been). See this post from Wednesday on this topic: http://derek-faithreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-we-think-we-are.html

I believe a factor that escaped mention in this column is that liberals have traditionally been skeptical of any type of pressure to impose "societal norms" of behavior. Conservatives yearn for the days gone by --- as I do --- when children were taught to respect elders, other people's property, etc. These concepts are passe in the minds of many liberals; being "judgmental" is still a well worn criticism anytime someone suggests, for instance, that out of wedlock births are dooming entire generations of minority children to entrapment in the poverty cycle.

Our society reflects now what liberals have always wanted. We shouldn't be surprised if now faced with the results of their efforts, they see unintended consequences and are trying to further tinker with society to eliminate those wrinkles in perfection.

"Why Americans fight over civility":

Because many people are uncivil?

Where do I pick up my T-shirt?

Please make a reasonable connection between the actions of psychotic Jared Loughner and any political discourse. Actual cause and effect required, not mere correlation and magical thinking.

I think a lot of the discussion on this board, by both panelists and commenters, has either deliberately or unintentionally, muddled the distinction between speech that is actually violent and that which is just demeaning, lumping them together as incendiary.

Sarah Palin published a congressional district map with indicators resembling rifle-scopes and advocated "reloading" as part of a political comeback. There were also those incidents in Summer 09 where people brought firearms to protest outside town hall meetings about health care reform.

This is actually advocacy of violence; perhaps metaphorical, but perhaps not a distinction that a nut would make. It shouldn't really be lumped with the kind of incivility that someone like Anne Coulter uses when she calls her opponents stupid, evil or un-American.

The statistics from the polling are very interesting and revealing. It would seem those most inclined to be persuaded by heated rhetoric are those who believe people are least influenced by it. The vitriolic rhetoric of the Right in the last election clearly swayed some voters (most of them on the Right), yet these are the same ones when polled who believe they are acting from individual will. I would argue the opposite is in fact true. www.killingmother.blogspot.com.

It is not just the philosophical differences that mark the political discourse. It is a feeling of superiority so profound that people with another POV are either evil or deranged, therefore unentitled to civility.

It began with Saul Alinsky and the Yippie movement but persons of all political stripes have taken the idea of inherent superiority and bludgeoned political and social discourse.

Many of my friends (both of them) laughed when I started my comedic-performance art piece “Lord Westover and the Nobility Oath”. They laughed because Lord Westover was my way of dealing with the ever growing incivility in our culture—and who would be foolish enough to address the inevitable? Lord Westover, Guardian of the Civilized World that’s who! His lordship’s mission is a Lowell-like conviction (you know the quote “Be noble, blah, blah, blah…) that all of us have a noble being (even though we may not know it) inside us that just needs to be brought out.

His Nobility Oath, though very humorous in tone, if taken for its spirit, would help transform civil discourse. Civility is truly the mortar of civilization. Without it, we collapse. It. Is. That. Simple. Read the Nobility Oath at: www.lordwestover.blogspot.com
Robert Westover
Washington, DC