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.
Civility in Politics: All Bets are Off
I couldn’t help rolling my eyes at this well intentioned definition of civility:
Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences, listening past one’s
preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. It is political in the sense that it is a necessary prerequisite for civic action. But it is political, too, in the sense that it is about negotiating interpersonal power such that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s is ignored.
And civility begins with us.
Good grief. There was a time when I would embrace this definition of civility; now I can only shake my head in disappointment because it is so alien to our current politics.
While Democrats call for civility, they bang on the doors of the Supreme Court, accost legislators in front of their homes and in elevators, shoot at them at bi-partisan baseball practices, and brutally attack them at their homes. The delusion that the Democrats speak from is mind-boggling. Hillary Clinton made this statement:
Clinton told CNN’s Christine Amanpour that one cannot be civil with a political party that ‘wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.’
‘That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again,’ Clinton asserted. ‘But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.’
I’m not a psychologist, but this comment is not only delusional; I assert that it is a classic state of projection: everything that Clinton said was a spot on description of the Progressives; they want to destroy everything that this country stands for. And that she thinks that civility can be turned back on like a light switch if the Democrats were to win the election is ridiculous, even frightening.
So here’s my take on civility in politics: it will not be practiced by the Democrats–period. They not only do not understand the concept; they don’t care about honoring it. The word “civility” is a whip to beat up the Republicans about what they are not doing: the Republicans are not caving in to Democrat demands; they are not being bullied by intimidation tactics; and they are refusing to legitimize the expectations of the other side. The Democrats will also play the victims of the incivility they demonstrate: it’s Donald Trump’s fault; it’s Mitch McConnell’s fault; it’s Susan Collins’ fault. All of these people and many others justify the incivility of the Left. I think we have to assume that for the foreseeable future, especially if the Republicans come out ahead in the mid-terms, the Democrats will not only continue to be uncivil, but they may very well escalate into violence.
So what can the Republicans do? Forge ahead with their plans. Continue to hammer repeatedly on the Justice Department for the information legislators are entitled to receive. Run political ads that highlight the appalling behavior, not only of protestors, but of the Democrats, too. Start to act like Conservatives by continuing efforts to cut back regulations. Refuse to support legislation that expands entitlement programs and the power and size of the federal government. Discern when Democrats should be ignored and when they should be called out. Speak out in support of Trump’s programs, such as building the wall and the new NAFTA agreement. Put your petty grievances aside for the good of the country. Demonstrate to everyone that the unity of the Republican Party is not an illusion, but the new reality.
It’s time to notify the country, not just Trump supporters but independents and disgruntled Democrats, too, that the New Republican party is here to stay.
Civility may be a casualty of the Democrat party, but the country can continue to move forward successfully, without their blessing.
It’s our time.
Published in Politics
Morning Simon,
What a dope I am, my question about apologies to Thomas, should have included Saint Thomas the Doubting, and also Thomas Aquimas, and also Thomas the tank engine, and also Russ Tamblyn. Thanks for the rebuke, I will try to do better (pulling on forelock and dragging toe in the dirt).
Precisely! So, uh, @jameslileks, can we expect a new post from you on this important topic?
We just may be ready to hear it. Certainly it’s a case that should be made to the young people coming up.
Bravo for you, James. I especially like the phrase “sugar-rush”. That’s what it will be for our side, if we ape the Democrats. We must think of the future, not just what make us feel good in this shameful time for our republic.
The problem is, @tommeyer, that very little can be accomplished with a handful of people, most of whom are not willing to speak out. I’m glad Michelle Obama spoke out, but can we count on her to be reasonable when she gets slammed? Is it easier for her because she’s not in office? I’m all for working with people who are willing to work with us, but I see very little interest in Dems separating themselves from the pack or condemning those who are attacking people. I would never turn down the opportunity to work with any Dem who sincerely want to work with Republicans. But where are they?
When you’re a Jet you’re a Jet all the way!
I felt exactly the same way when I heard her say this, even though I, too, did not believe her years ago when she first said it. She definitely set herself above the Clintons, Holders, Maxine Waters of the Democrat party. I was very surprised, because ever since her “this is the first time I am proud of my country” comment, conveniently felt after her husband was elected POTUS, doncha know, I have disliked her intensely and always saw an angry countenance about her.
Morning Susan,
To further explore your idea of civility, do your think Graham’s in your face denunciation of the dems during the Kavanaugh hearing was uncivil? How about when Trump calls Warren Pocahontas and challenges her to take a DNA test?
And thus the rapidly growing incidents of violence . . .
Whenever Susan makes a post, the people at Ricochet deem it to be liked by all . . .
The word “politics” is derived from two sources:
Poly, which means many, and ticks, which are blood-sucking parasites . . .
@jimbeck, could you explain why my answers are important to you? Isn’t possible that a person is uncivil and are justified in saying what they’ve said? You could go through a whole list of comments people make, and I might give you a different answer every time, and then you’d have the opportunity to show how inconsistent I am. Still, I think when a person speaks the truth when a wrong has been done, I don’t care whether he or she is civil or not. So I loved when Lindsey Graham spoke up. I think Trump’s comment has become boring and stupid. Yes, Warren is likely not Native American: who cares? Not only that, Trump main goal is to upset people and attack Warren personally–those are intents that I don’t hold in high regard. Actually this is an excellent discussion, because I’ve been struggling to define my position. I put in bold part of the insight I’ve gained.
Ah, the Billy Blaze school of etymology. Well done.
I don’t think we should trust Michelle Obama. I do think she did the right thing here and that it resulted in Holder backing-off when he might otherwise have doubled-down:
Hardly a profile in courage, but…
There are Democrats whose behavior in the last few weeks deserves retaliation. Feinstein needs to punished for her role in the Kavanaugh circus (which are bad if you think Ford was lying but, arguably, worse if you think she might have been telling the truth). Same goes for any senator who let Avenatti stoke the worst kind of conspiracies. This needs to be answered hard, but I think it’s in our interests to focus our efforts on the worst offenders rather than try to damage all Democrats equally.
Anyone have any suggestions as to how, I’m all ears.
Oh, buzz off.
(kidding!) I think another post from me on Civility would be another session on my hobby-horse. I like riding it, but don’t expect everyone to gather and watch.
I’d like to put my two cents in this, if everyone wouldn’t mind?!
What Lindsey Graham did was in no way uncivil. He pointed out what that side was doing. If you call him uncivil, you’d have to call out everyone who points out when someone is doing wrong as uncivil. The Democrats on that committee were engaged in destruction of a good man’s reputation, and, I would argue, in violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution, which prescribes how we should treat people who are charged with offenses. You could not make that case in court, because it wasn’t a court of Law. But, morally speaking, I believe they were violative of their oaths.
Good point. Someone point out that it was ironic that the former Attorney General was suggesting assaulting others.
Mostly I disagree with Mrs. Clinton because 1) she is projecting her own wants onto others, and 2) she is demonstrating her typical lack of self-awareness.
But even if I were to overlook those, I would still disagree with her. Past experience demonstrates that should Democrats win all the levers of government power, not only would they not re-start civility, they would use those levers of power to destroy any who disagreed with them (if they were victorious after the battle, they would go around shooting the wounded from the other army).
It’s hard to appreciate anyone who has her kind of track record, never mind trust her, @fullsizetabby. But if a Democrat came forward that at least had some record of working with Republicans and had shown a modicum of integrity, I might consider talking with them.
I think her Ford stunt was a last gasp to save her political career. Her opponent is younger and more popular:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/15/politics/kevin-de-leon-dianne-feinstein-california-democrats/index.html
I was trying to ask a question. I still do not know which Thomas. Sometimes I miss the obvious. Sometimes what is obvious to everyone else is a complete mystery to me.
Maybe yes but maybe no.
Conservatives have pretty much provided the Progs with ‘the world’ that they want to destroy. Dragging the Leftist leaders and their mob on our backs for another 120 years (plus of minus) is not my idea of fun.
ST, I’m pretty sure he meant Clarence Thomas, because he was talked about so much during the Kavanaugh hearings. If I’m wrong, @jimbeck will correct me.
It will likely be difficult and miserable, @simontemplar. They’ll make sure of it. But it will be our mission if we want to remain a democratic republic.
That should be the debate – no? Will the Leftists give us back our 10th Amendment.
If not, is it too unholy to sometimes wonder about dissolving the union?
FYI: We’d probably want New Orleans.
Evening Susan,
These many posts on civility have emerged during the presidency of Trump. That they have only emerged now is a curious aspect of a particular narrative. Tip O”Neill from the podium of the Democratic National Convention said, “The evil is in the White HOuse at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generation so America…He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood”. JUmping even further back to Goldwater we see an earlier version of Trump treatment. In the City Journal article https://www.city-journal.org/html/goldwater-takedown-14787.htm Goldwater gets all the charges we have become accustomed to from the memorable “in your guts you know he’s nuts” to the 1,189 psychiatrists who say Goldwater is unfit in “The Unconscious of a Conservative: ASpecial Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater”. The article tells us that Goldwater is a product of a “sadistic childhood” who “compulsively must prove his daring and masculinity”, and that some psychiatrists find a connection between sadism and anal character. Psychiatrist Ruth Adams said that she saw “a strong identification with the authoritarianism of Hitler, if not identification with Hitler himself” psychiatrist Johnson said that Goldwater had “the same pathological make-up as Hitler, Castro, Stalin” (now the last to names would be photoshopped out, including the shoes). Dr. Paul Fink said the he “appeals to the unconscious sadism and hostility in the average human being”, and Dr. Templeton warned that if Goldwater wins “you and I will be among the first into the concentration camps”.
So the problem I have with these repeated calls to civility is that at no time in these last 80 years have politicians, statesmen, journalists come forward and made any successful call to civility; there is no evidence that these calls even if they had happened would be effective. We did not have politicians who defended Clarence Thomas and we did not have politicians who defended Kavanaugh until he had already successfully defended himself. Our calls to civility seem to really give cover to cowardice. And as today, Goldwater had a “brave” seeker of truth (sarcasm) George Romney who urged delegates to “repudiate extremism on the right and the left”.
The media played its usual part, no one in the media complained about the “Daisy” commercial and the beloved Daniel Schorr (one of NPR’s most respected reporters) reported before the Republican convention was over that Goldwater was planning a vacation in Bavaria ” to link up with his opposite numbers in Germany”. Of course no other reporter noted that that was an invention and that Schorr was a liar, nothing new and still true.
From Roger Kimball’s article https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/its-all-gone-the-democrats-dead-ideals/, Hundreds of alumni, students, and faculty, have signed a letter saying that Kavanaugh represents ” and emergency–for democratic life, for our safety and freedom, for the future of our country…”. I could be entirely misinterpreting your an others call to civility but I do not think your appeal addresses the problems we see in the letter by those folks from Yale. I do not think appeals to civility even know how to think about the “Screaming girl”. These problems have been left to fester for ages and to change culture, even political culture is difficult and calls to civility distract us from asking how cultures change, how it declines and how to reverse the course. What has worked in the past, anything.
You are probably correct. I do not watch TV and saw none of the hearings (live), just a video clip or two. Do not recall ‘Thomas’ ever being mentioned in any of the clips that I saw.
I was trying to ask a question. I still do not know which Thomas. Sometimes I miss the obvious. Sometimes what is obvious to everyone else is a complete mystery to me.
Not to speak for @jimbeck, but maybe Justice Clarence Thomas, maligned by Anita Hill, is part of his list of possibilities, too.
Thanks.