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
representative republic?
Is ‘Constitutional Republic’ the most accurate way to describe our form of government?
I’m completely baffled at your comment, @jimbeck. Did you read my post? I didn’t call Republicans to civility. I said there was no point in trying, given how the dems are behaving. Incivility in politics goes back to Washington’s time. I had hoped in far earlier posts that we might be able to save civility, but I haven’t called for civility in a long time; I don’t think that’s possible. I think people are pointing out incivility, because it isn’t just coming from the intelligentsia and the government, but it’s coming from the people all over the country. That’s why I called for Republicans to just focus on getting their work done. What am I missing? (I’ll be off for the Sabbath.)
Generally we are called a democratic Republic: we democratically elect people to represent us in government.
OK – thanks. I’ve heard some pretty heated (and silly in my opinion) arguments about this. I’ll just go with democratic Republic for now. Thanks again Teacher.
It once was, and may soon be again…
That’s what we were told we were fighting for.
May I end that previous sentence with a preposition?
Of course, freedom of syntax and grammar are both included in freedom of speech. :-)
I prefer Constitutional Republic. Our Republic is based on the Constitution. Our Founders, just to name one thing, did not have us elect the Senate. That took the 17th. Amendment. The state legislators elected the Senate.
Countries like North Korea call themselves Democratic Republics.
Repeal the 17th Amendment? Please hit the like counter if you want that bad-boy gone.
In an ideal world, I’d consider it. This is not an ideal world.
Yes, I’d like to get back to the idea of what our Republic was founded on: That, along with the Democracy part, there is a Senate, whose main function is deliberate, so that the passions of the House can be cooled by careful thoughtfulness. There is too much Populism in our day. Population, despite what some well known people are saying, is the negation of conservatism.
However, too much time has gone by. The amendment was passed in 1912, and ratified in 1913. Repealing it would create havoc.
Morning Susan,
Well, I confuse Simon about which undefended Thomas, and am rather incoherent in responding to your post, I am batting 1.000. Sorry I will try to do better.
So we are to hammer the DOJ and maybe the FBI for more info, to what purpose, and who will this persuade? Already we know that Strozk can smell Trump voters, that he and Page and McCabe were working against Trump and that the whole FBI was trying to hobble Trump, that the Ohr couple was a FUsion conduit and that BAker was a back channel and that the previous admin unmasked an unprecedented number of Trump folks, what will more info add. We have had many, maybe more that ten McCarthy articles on the corrupt practices of the DOJ and the FBI concerning Trump, and you are suggesting that further info we do what. As VDH and others have noted if Trump were not elected none of this would have come out. Even though the IRS, Lois Lerner scandal did not cause the public to understand the dangers of a large unaccountable government, hammering on the DOJ and FBI will? Or maybe you think the hammering will cause the federal employees to straighten up. I do not even think the Project Veritas videos will cause the federal employees to straighten up, the VA hasn’t shown great improvement.
Running ads of bad behavior like BLM or Anitra might work, they would be much like the old law and order campaigns which played on the fear of crime. Fear is a great marketing tool, are you going this direction? The communities with direct experience of BLM or Antifa riots do not seem to be turning red, or coming to an awareness that these groups are not helping address injustice. Pointing out bad behavior of dems and calling them out like Graham or recently Cassidy might also be helpful to some politicians, rather a Trump light or a Trump civil. I am pleased to see more of this, however maybe we should reverse engineer the fall of the junior Senator of Wisconsin to see how powerful leaders can be brought low. What does it take to discredit a a leader and their ideas.
We have a hard sell, “vote for us because we will give you less stuff, and it will be good for you”. “Federalism is your friend”. We can’t even repeal Obamacare. To wean us off the govt and to see that our own govt is our biggest threat will take wisdom and work. I don’t see your suggestions as more than a list of hopes not a guide to a set of actions which have proven to be successful. I don’t see that you can provide any evidence to support the efficacy of your suggestions.
Patience, @jimbeck and @simontemplar. I’m working this through in baby steps on the “Benghazi” thread. Hopes and emotions are how that crowd thinks. Gotta recalibrate the delivery system a bit, to make the message sink in…Gonna keep trying!
The Founders, as best I recall, used the simple noun: republic. Makes sense because the constitutional part was obvious/implied. In the Constitution, the states are guaranteed a “republican form of government”. The details aren’t specific.
Afternoon Nanda,
Sorry for being impatient. Your observation that what the crowd thinks is shaped via hopes and emotion and that we need to think about our delivery system is spot on. I would like to discuss these ideas. The current attraction of socialism shows how complex popular understandings are. We have repeatedly seen how effective tax cuts are in releasing economic activity, JFK, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump for example. It would seem that the benefits of allowing people to spend their own money would be obvious by now, tax cuts benefit the economy at large, and looking at current unemployment and wage growth, we can see the benefits are felt at the individual level. Yet, look how popular all the socialist candidates are. We have to ask how is it that an economic system that has never worked still has an appeal and how can we defuse that appeal, facts and history don’t seem to matter.
Not only do facts seem to fall flat but intellectual argument falls flat as well. We are lucky to have Heather MacDonald fighting against the lie that the police are murdering blacks intentionally and that they are in fact doing the unspoken wishes of a racist white America. We could have no more charming, bright, civil, learned spokesman who knows from her personal education the fine detail of post modernism and critical race theory, and yet she has had little impact and virtually none in the academic world, where she is shunned.
I think we need to think about marketing, persuasion, and how culture is shaped by emotions, and hope and how to use this knowledge to successfully defend the Western way of life.
Amen, Jim! As one whose profession often required trying to understand being in another’s shoes, and a bit of thinking “heart first”, at times, (Though I was fortunate enough to be one of the last – I think – to be educated to pay attention to facts, think things through, and make up my own mind.) how far-fetched is it to somehow frame the “American experiment” as a kind of love story? (Go ahead, guffaw…). But, if we can awaken emotions around, say: Freedom from persecution; freedom to begin again, etc. working our way up to patriotism/founding ideas – and how they work today…Incorporating say, Acton Institute, ultimately – and its practical approach to subsidiarity and free-market ideas? Just brainstorming as I type…
Afternoon again Nanda,
As I hear you speak of a love story, I hear gratitude. I think gratitude is a hard sell. I think hope is an easier sell, maybe around education, apprenticeships, self employment, small business ownership, offering opportunity. I think a politician could make a conservative case for hope in which an individual can advance through their own work. The head fake part of this would be that self employed folks and small business folks would more likely vote conservative in the future. Concerning gratitude, without it life is flat and meaningless, however our material wealth has eroded gratitude, like the fisherman’s wife we only want more, aren’t we entitled to it?
Yes, hope is uniquely part of the American identity, as are autonomy, self-sufficiency, initiative, and equality of opportunity, rather than outcome. Gratitude flows from all these, I think, as we push back against the entitlement mindset, just a bit, at first. My highlighting of freedom from persecution, initially, was a countering of victimhood culture, it seems to me… (The ‘love story’ view comes from folks like Daniel Hannan, in my experience…).
They are hopes, @jimbeck. I’m not ready to give up. My hope is that they discover some actual criminal evidence where people can/should be prosecuted. Whether they will act (since they haven’t in the past), I don’t know. We’ve seen the Republicans do some unexpected things, so I’d rather think optimistically. You are correct about the ads; as @nandapanjandrum says, it will take time, just like turning a ship around. So are you just going to grumble and give up, or do you have some solutions?
I think this ties in to your comment about socialism. First, people want to believe that we can do it better. Second, we have created an entitlement culture, so even when people start doing better, they want more. The human appetite for the material (as opposed to ideas like gratitude and spirit) is insatiable. Benefiting from one’s own business is a dying philosophy. But I’m open to just about any ideas!
It may be time (again) to see if we are a democratic republic or not. We should return to the original meaning of the Constitution or seek to separate from those who want to amend the Constitution via judicial fiat. I’ll take the old south plus the border states and Alaska as my opening bid.
I’ll take all the states except New York, Massachusetts, and California.
Second. But they can keep DC and its environs also as far as I’m concerned.
Speaking of build that wall!
Are those States where the enemy will reside?
Hey! I live in Massachusetts :) There is actually a very solid republican minority here; 40% of voters, and some of the hard core conservatives here are very fierce: one of the Supreme Court cases (which our side won) was based on freedom of speech outside of abortion clinics and was brought by a pro-life Massachusetts woman whom they were trying to silence.
I have an idea. There are about 6 million people in Massachusetts; most of them don’t vote, so all we would need would be for 1 or 2 million conservatives to move here, and we could flip the state! We aren’t as anywhere near as crazy as California or NYC, and there are far more economic opportunities here than in upstate NY.
Don’t know what to do about California and New York, but if we could flip Mass, and turn other areas from purple to red, we wouldn’t need to do anything. :)
It’s a good way to describe the original form. Its present form? Not so much.
Interestingly, the anti-Federalists were worried that the Constitution would, if adopted, open the way to the rise to power of a politically unaccountable judiciary.
Mid-Atlantic to Midwest for me….
And the Progs latched onto that promise a long time ago.
I have a lot of family in Nantucket (none of the wealthy people). Most of them are usually cussing about those democrats.
But they have the Kennedies and Romneycare.
Meh. The Kennedys are pretty much over-they are basically a (bad) joke at this point, and even with Romneycare, taxes in Massachusetts are still lower than Connecticut and New Jersey, I am pretty sure, and at least we have something to show for it.
You know how Texas is mostly conservative, and then there are a bunch of leftists in Austin? Massachusetts is kind of like that. Most people in most places here are normal, but there are several towns-Cambridge, Northampton, Provincetown, probably a few others that I am missing, which are filled to the absolute brim with leftists, and I suspect that is mostly why we are totally democrat. Plus, there are some old school democrats who are basically normal people but they are just too proud to admit that they have been wrong. Lots of areas of Mass are either red or purple :)