Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pushing Back: True and False Civility
In the wake of the Kavanaugh/Ford debacle, the topic of civility has once again been brought to the fore. Inevitably, in the aftermath of progressive rudeness or violence, there is a call among conservatives for a tit-for-tat response, for an embrace of the unsavory techniques of the progressive opposition, usually accompanied by an assertion that we’re in a war and we’re losing because we refuse to play by the enemy’s rules.
I’m sympathetic to this perspective: it’s extraordinarily frustrating to face an opposition that seems devoid of principle and honor and that flouts the most basic constraints of law and decency. It’s natural to want to punch back, and it’s understandable that the constraints of civility so common among conservatives would leave some feeling at a disadvantage.
“Civility” really means an adherence to norms of behavior, to established rules of speech and conduct. Civility tends to come naturally to conservatives because preserving established rules is at the heart of what “conservative” means. In contrast, progressives tend to be dismissive of rules when those rules are seen as obstructions to achieving a desired end.
Incivility is a fractal quality of modern progressivism. That is, it appears at every level, in matters big and small. We see it in the vulgarity of their language, the boorishness of their entertainers and celebrities, the dishonesty of their politics, the viciousness of their tactics of personal destruction, their rejection of norms of free discourse, their growing displays of public rudeness and intimidation, and, increasingly, their violent opposition to dissent. The left has made the political landscape an ugly and dangerous place.
I’ve written before about civility, and about my belief that conservatives should continue to embrace it. I’m writing now to express a more nuanced view on the subject, a kind of compromise, one that recognizes that there are two kinds of civility used – or violated – by progressives, and that whether or not conservatives should respect civility depends on which kind of civility is being discussed.
True Civility
Progressives routinely violate broadly accepted rules of civil behavior. They’re profane, vulgar, threatening, dishonest, and destructive. They break laws, corrupt government institutions, and resort to violence to suppress dissent.
These are all behaviors that Americans by and large reject. We are a civil people who decry such gross incivility when it’s brought to our attention. Progressives know this: it is precisely for this reason that the mainstream media avoid reporting progressive violence and extremism, while highlighting the comparatively rare instances of conservative misbehavior.
The violent riots, anti-free speech protests, and occasional shootings are not intended to sway the public. These angry outbursts of self-righteous and often desperate people giving vent to their frustration and hatred don’t convince anyone of the rightness of the progressive position.
Conservatives can and should use these events to their advantage, not by emulating them but by publicizing them widely, both to galvanize fellow conservatives and to show to the politically ambivalent middle that there is a real difference between conservatives and progressives – and that it is the conservative who represents the broadly shared values of civility and comity most of us still hold in common.
Critically, conservatives can do this only if they avoid descending into the depths of incivility themselves. Our distaste for hypocrisy is ancient and deep, and the value of highlighting progressive ugliness vanishes if a credible case can be made that conservatives are just as bad. We aren’t, and we should defend the high ground.
Rather than embracing progressive incivility, we should call attention to it. Think of it as a kind of civic jujitsu, leveraging the incivility of our enemies against them without ourselves resorting to deplorable behavior.
False Civility
The progressives’ violation of civility is not terribly consequential and can be used against them. Far more significant is the left’s use of false civility to constrain conservatives and shape public opinion. While I strongly encourage conservatives to adhere to standards of true civility, I think it is essential that conservatives reject the false standards of civility progressives attempt to impose. This is a kind of “incivility” that I embrace and encourage.
By false civility, I mean the burgeoning rules of political correctness that seek to define what decent people can think and say. These are the new standards the left tries to impose, often successfully, through its domination of popular media and respected opinion-shaping institutions. By defining which views are considered socially acceptable, the left uses the natural conservative tendency toward civility against us in a way that eventually, if left unchallenged, does change public opinion.
Pushing back against even false standards of civility is uncomfortable for many of us, so deep is the conservative desire to avoid causing offense. But it’s necessary if we are to check progressive efforts to redefine normal in abnormal ways. Fortunately, the left embraces a lot of ideas that are obviously nonsensical, and that makes it easier to express criticism of them even when such criticism has been rendered socially questionable.
The myth of male/female equivalence, the nonsense of the gender-diversity movement, the fiction of “racist America,” the hypocrisy of exploding identity politics, the ignorant celebration of socialism and rejection of the miraculous achievements of free market capitalism, the anti-science of catastrophic global warming, the left’s increasingly blatant anti-Americanism – all of these are examples of the new etiquette of false civility, and all should be challenged by conservatives.
I’ve heard the arguments against speaking out. Some people fear they’ll lose their jobs, others that their class grades will suffer. Many worry about being branded cranks and bigots. Fair enough: not everyone is free to push back as blatantly or as strenuously as, say, a single, thick-skinned, middle-aged, self-employed curmudgeon like myself.
But to those who argue that conservatives should flirt with the true incivility of the left, and should consider violating real norms of decency, honesty, and legality, I say this: it’s more valuable, less destructive, easier, and simply better to intelligently violate the false civility progressives are trying to impose on us than it is to reject what most conservatives and most Americans respect and what, ultimately, we are trying to preserve and restore.
Published in Culture
Yep. I’ve said it before and I’ll bore you with it again: Trump is the “rough draft” version of a new conservative politician. We need smart young politicians who can see what he does right — take the offensive in the culture wars, tackle “impossible” issues, and bypass the conversation-framers — but do it better, with sophistication, a working knowledge of the issues, and a tactical understanding of the political system.
I’m not bored, Dorrk. I think is pretty darn good! :-)
Afternoon Henry,
That is a feckless response, just model the behavior we champion, ha. Let us ask Bork,Thomas and Kavanaugh, you must remember Senator Danforth’s stinging rebuke to the charges against Thomas which were so clear and strong no one ever tried to smear that honorable gentleman again. Oh, well, except for Harry Reid who commented that Thomas contributed nothing to the court and anyone who wanted to call Thomas a “Tom”. And Miss Hill she must have suffered terribly, with the book deal and the movies in which she was the heroine. We have three men considered for the court whose reputations have been permanently stained and you have nothing with which to defend against their smears, guaranteeing that smearing will be a weapon of choice. Again you are saying your suggestion that civil response will win the day, and I am challenging you to show me when it has. You have not done that. We have had three judges smeared and you have no idea how to respond. The smears have done their damage not just in a big cultural way but at the most personal level an you have no defense. I do not accept that. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Afternoon George,
Franklin said that we have a Republic if we can keep it, George neither the “holy” conservatism nor our Republic will run on auto pilot. Burke, “Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour then prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years…”. Burke, “Early and provident fear is the mother is safety; because in that state of things the mind is firm and collected, and the judgment unembarrassed.”, from Steven Hayward at Powerline. We have lost a lot of ground since Reagan. The quality of education at all levels has gone down, marriage has become a secondary life style for the population which needs marriage the most, tolerance for conservative skepticism is not accepted, and racial distrust is shamelessly stoked.
Dorrk,
Right after the election I commented on a post (who knows which one) that I thought that as crude as Trump is, he is a needed bridge to get us from the old “we lost, but it’s a moral victory” GOP to a new GOP that can be built around the values that most regular voters adhere to and t play to win. The bridge was necessary to prevent another eight years of Obama style non-American fundamental transformation of this great country.
Your attack on Henry claimed he had no solutions. Now, you tell me that we have lost a lot of ground since Ronald Reagan. Well, what is your solution? Is it to borrow a leaf from the leftist’s playbook and think up our own charges to the one they so profligately bandy about? With all due respect, I suggest some fewer attacks on those of us who try and remind us why we are conservatives in the first place, and put forward your own (creditable) formula for what we can do.
Incidentally, I also suggest you take another look at what you yourself wrote about burke. Sounds like a little bit of Hank to me, with his suggestion about “…Prudence, deliberation, and foresight…”
Evening George,
Did REagan hate gays, did he think it was only rough justice that they should die of aids? That is the smear which was thrown at Reagan and has not been refuted. This is history, if your can show how Reagan refuted this smear, show us how he did it. You suggest that Reagan was one of your favorite presidents, in your memory or by reasearch, how have conservatives erased this libel against one of their heroes? They have done nothing.
We have seen good men smeared. What have we done to defend them? What worked? You seem stumped. Are we to tolerate these smears? What do you and Henry propose doing? You are the ones saying, stay calm and be civil.
Trump is the best model I have seen at countering narratives. First let no false charge go unanswered. Secondly let no politically correct rubbish stand i.e. Pocahontas, or Senator (I was in Nam) Blumenthal, yes that means labeling and name calling even if it is rude, like Crooked Hillary. Hold accountable our opponents even if it resembles Alinsky, that is hold them up to the standards they espouse, that includes the press which is the opponent of the people.
To tolerate the smears means to accept them and encourage our opponents to continue to smear good humans. To stand by is not a path to justice.
I’m going to attempt some Hegelian ju jitsu.
Both sides have outlined some essential truths. But we seem to be wrapped around a literary axle.
It’s absolutely crucial we remember we are the good guys. White hats, rule of law, paladins of civil society. There should be some places we don’t go. It doesn’t mean we can’t punch back hard. It doesn’t mean we are bound by some romantic view of American politics from an era that never existed. We just don’t want to destroy the village to save it. We have to exit the inferno with our soul intact.
How? The $64 question. I don’t have very good answers more along the lines of some warnings. First, remember what Rush Limbaugh has been saying for 30 years, don’t assume being right is persuasive, you have to persuade and proselytize. Keep talking. Second, don’t presume elected politicians share your (our). values and goals. Third, we work in a hostile media environment. Everything we do is subjected to heightened scrutiny. Consider we are an army fighting a campaign where the enemy has total air supremacy. Fourth, there are no final victories in American politics. Some bells can’t be unrung, but most issues aren’t like that.
And that’s the name of that tune.
This is absurd. Lincoln was called a gorilla, among other things. Should we try to find out who did it, dig him, and horse whip him?
History answers smears. People know that Reagan did not do the things that the scum accused him. They told people that when he nearly got 50 states to elect him (he missed Minnesota by a hair’s breath). The way Trump answers smears is by making himself look small, diminishes the presidency, and does not do a thing for our side.
I am through with the thread. Henry started it. If he wants to answer these reckless thoughts, that’s up to him. I happen to know he is far more patient than I am.
Good Luck to you, Jim. I think you’ll need it, with all that anger.