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
Tags:

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 110 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    *and the leftists always always always vote, whereas the normal people don’t always vote. 

    • #91
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    open the way to the rise to power of a politically unaccountable judiciary.

    And the Progs latched onto that promise a long time ago.

    But the Constitution does not lead to judicial supremacy in Constitutional interpretation.

    Judicial review of standing law, yes. But that’s not the same thing.

    It’s unConstitutional governance that leads to an unaccountable judiciary.

    More on my post on who can interpret the Constitution. Link on my profile.

    • #92
  3. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    open the way to the rise to power of a politically unaccountable judiciary.

    And the Progs latched onto that promise a long time ago.

    But the Constitution does not lead to judicial supremacy in Constitutional interpretation.

    Judicial review of standing law, yes. But that’s not the same thing.

    It’s unConstitutional governance that leads to an unaccountable judiciary.

    More on my post on who can interpret the Constitution. Link on my profile.

    I understand, but the soup we are in is different.  How to correct that is one of my biggest concerns.

    • #93
  4. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    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?

    Civility does not mean being unwilling or unable to confront someone when they are way out of line. This can be done with a measure of good humor but must be unstintingly direct to be effective. No weasel words or backtracking. In my opinion Graham handled the situation exactly right. Unfortunately, President Trump does not do so as a general rule. Personal attacks are not only not necessary, they are counter productive since they gender sympathy for the target of correction. And correction, not derision, must be the objective. 

    • #94
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    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. :)

    Works for me, @judithanncampbell2

    • #95
  6. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    It’s worth remembering that the “polarization” that upsets everyone isn’t because the Republicans moved to the right.

    It’s because the Democrats have moved hard Left.

    Stacy McCain writes:

    What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

    Go back to George W. Bush’s presidency. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, there was a surge of patriotic sentiment that was politically beneficial to Republicans, who won the 2002 midterms and were able to re-elect Bush in 2004, when Democrats nominated the anti-war candidate John Kerry. Unfortunately for the GOP, Bush’s premature “Mission Accomplished” claim about Iraq proved false. As the insurgency raged and the death toll among U.S. troops mounted, the anti-war protests on university campuses radicalized many students, who went seeking for a Democrat messiah, and embraced Barack Obama as their savior. The collapse of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in the Democrat primaries — which I witnessed firsthand on the campaign trail — was culturally significant in ways that were perhaps not entirely apparent at the time.

    Who was it that enabled Obama to defeat Hillary? Young people radicalized by the Iraq War, in quite the same way as George McGovern’s 1972 campaign was driven by youth radicalized by Vietnam. While Obama also benefited from increased turnout by black voters, the true audience for his message of “Hope” and “Change” were under-30 voters, including a lot of white college kids who had no other frame of reference for politics and policy than the previous eight years of the Bush administration. Think about it: Those born in 1988 knew nothing of Reagan, and Newt Gingrich’s heyday occurred when they were in first or second grade. They were fourth-graders when the Lewinsky scandal made headlines, and barely into adolescence when 9/11 happened.

    Given the notorious inadequacy of K-12 education in America, and the left-wing prejudice of university professors, were these young people ever taught anything about budget deficits or the actuarial problems of federal entitlement programs? Did their teachers ever expose them to any cogent criticisms of ObamaCare? I doubt it. The generation of youth who cast their first presidential vote for Barack Obama in 2008 were not motivated by any substantial knowledge of the public policy issues at stake. Rather, they were inspired by a sentimental attraction to an idea — Obama as the progressive Messiah who would save them from those evil Republicans, the party of war, greed, racism and homophobia.

    The key word in the last sentence is sentimental. They are motivated by the sentiment that the false ideas give them, and will destroy whatever threatens that. By any means necessary. Civility… not really.

    Here’s the Oregonian with a timeline of the brawl in Portland between Proud Boys and friends and Antifa.

    • #96
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    The key word in the last sentence is sentimental. They are motivated by the sentiment that the false ideas give them, and will destroy whatever threatens that. By any means necessary. Civility… not really.

    Great quote, @ontheleftcoast. And we can’t turn back time . . .

    • #97
  8. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    The key word in the last sentence is sentimental. They are motivated by the sentiment that the false ideas give them, and will destroy whatever threatens that. By any means necessary. Civility… not really.

    Great quote, @ontheleftcoast. And we can’t turn back time . . .

    Thanks. Keeping the sentiment going requires considering classes of people as objects by means of which one can gratify oneself. This works on a micro scale too. It can be seen in the extreme case (which makes the process more evident) of an adult who sexually abuses a child: the adults must value the feeling they get over the children’s value as a human being.

    • #98
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    The key word in the last sentence is sentimental. They are motivated by the sentiment that the false ideas give them, and will destroy whatever threatens that. By any means necessary. Civility… not really.

    Great quote, @ontheleftcoast. And we can’t turn back time . . .

    Thanks. Keeping the sentiment going requires considering classes of people as objects by means of which one can gratify oneself. This works on a micro scale too. It can be seen in the extreme case (which makes the process more evident) of an adult who sexually abuses a child: the adults must value the feeling they get over the children’s value as a human being.

    My goodness, this is true in every aspect of life!! This is what made the Holocaust possible. This is what allows people to hate anyone else–your views, beliefs, preferences all supersede anything else about the other person. It allows one person/group to dehumanize the other. So sick.

    • #99
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Dear Tommy and Cassy, 

    Please take your definition of civility and shove it up your [Redacted]. 

    • #100
  11. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    Civility does not mean being unwilling or unable to confront someone when they are way out of line. This can be done with a measure of good humor but must be unstintingly direct to be effective. No weasel words or backtracking.

    And what is one to do when the person confronted (without weasel words or backtracking) looks like he is ready, willing, and able to ‘go full chimp’ on your a55?

    • #101
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    Civility does not mean being unwilling or unable to confront someone when they are way out of line. This can be done with a measure of good humor but must be unstintingly direct to be effective. No weasel words or backtracking.

    And what is one to do when the person confronted (without weasel words or backtracking) looks like he is ready, willing, and able to ‘go full chimp’ on your a55?

    That’s a tough one, ST. For me, I hope I wouldn’t push a situation to that point! 

    • #102
  13. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    Civility does not mean being unwilling or unable to confront someone when they are way out of line. This can be done with a measure of good humor but must be unstintingly direct to be effective. No weasel words or backtracking.

    And what is one to do when the person confronted (without weasel words or backtracking) looks like he is ready, willing, and able to ‘go full chimp’ on your a55?

    That’s a tough one, ST. For me, I hope I wouldn’t push a situation to that point!

    Then how might one go about not backtracking if push comes to shove?

    • #103
  14. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    Civility does not mean being unwilling or unable to confront someone when they are way out of line. This can be done with a measure of good humor but must be unstintingly direct to be effective. No weasel words or backtracking.

    And what is one to do when the person confronted (without weasel words or backtracking) looks like he is ready, willing, and able to ‘go full chimp’ on your a55?

    That’s a tough one, ST. For me, I hope I wouldn’t push a situation to that point!

    Correct and that is how we arrive at “rule” by mob intimidation and force. 

    • #104
  15. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    ST, I just finished watching “Paul, Apostle of Christ” (the relationship of Paul and Luke as teacher and student figures prominently in it.) Though the screenwriters insist that love has a power all its own in Christ, I can’t help thinking that a can of bear spray/pepper spray might be something to keep in one’s reach, if persuasion misfires.  These are bullies and thugs, are they not?  (Not forgetting the ”1% gold star” an earlier poster mentioned employing, too.

    • #105
  16. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    I can’t help thinking that a can of bear spray/pepper spray might be something to keep in one’s reach, if persuasion misfires.

    Nanda you should never purchase pepper spray to take with you when you leave your home.  I would advise most people to at least consider it.

    I recently gave a (made in USA) pepper spray to a ‘skoy’ that was trying to get out of the lifestyle.

    • #106
  17. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    I can’t help thinking that a can of bear spray/pepper spray might be something to keep in one’s reach, if persuasion misfires.

    Nanda you should never purchase pepper spray to take with you when you leave your home. I would advise most people to at least consider it.

    I recently gave a (made in USA) pepper spray to a ‘skoy’ that was trying to get out of the lifestyle.

    What do you think of the Kimber Pepperblaster II OC gel gun?

    • #107
  18. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    I can’t help thinking that a can of bear spray/pepper spray might be something to keep in one’s reach, if persuasion misfires.

    Nanda you should never purchase pepper spray to take with you when you leave your home. I would advise most people to at least consider it.

    I recently gave a (made in USA) pepper spray to a ‘skoy’ that was trying to get out of the lifestyle.

    What do you think of the Kimber Pepperblaster II OC gel gun?

    I prefer something that barks here, bites there, and puts the ‘dog’ down humanely with a sudden impact.

    • #108
  19. Simon Templar Member
    Simon Templar
    @

    P.S.  But I can also see the need for non-lethal sometimes (or maybe not).

    • #109
  20. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    I can’t help thinking that a can of bear spray/pepper spray might be something to keep in one’s reach, if persuasion misfires.

    Nanda you should  purchase pepper spray to take with you when you leave your home. I would advise most people to at least consider it.

    I recently gave a (made in USA) pepper spray to a ‘skoy’ that was trying to get out of the lifestyle.

    Copy that, ST…My brother is trying to work out what style will be effective for my dexterity/mobility, etc.

    • #110
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.