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.
Toward a Deeper Civility
From a President who often seems mean-spirited and petty, to angry mobs threatening their opponents with bodily harm, to smugly superior journalists and entertainers preaching their bottomless contempt to a Pavlovian audience of unthinking conformists, the observation that much of our national conversation is mired in incivility and vulgarity seems undeniable.
Whether or not this is new is debatable. Heated political exchanges are nothing new; yellow journalism and intemperate pundits are not a 21st-century phenomenon, nor even a 20th. What seems likely is that the scope of incivility has increased, upward to the President and Congress, downward to every citizen with a microphone or Twitter account. Partly this is the product of greater participation: when everyone has a voice, a lot of people with nothing useful to say will nonetheless say it loudly.
In such a heated atmosphere, it’s difficult to resist joining in, piling on. I’ve certainly fallen prey to the temptation, as much as I try to resist it. We should all make a greater effort to slow down and dial back the outrage, focus more on ideas than on individuals, spend more time trying to understand each other than scoring points with barbed comments and cheap wit. If civil society is what we want, we should try to be more broadly civil.
But there’s another aspect to civility, one less obvious than a rude tweet or a vulgar stand-up journalist comic. This is respect for alternative viewpoints — at least, for those that are not obviously far outside the bounds of humanity and decency, or wildly irrational. This is deep civility, the willingness not only to be reasonably gracious in one’s discourse but also sincerely thoughtful in one’s engagement with ideas.
This kind of deep civility is difficult for both conservatives and radicals, for those wary of change and for those enthusiastic for it. But it’s the kind of civility that will be required if we hope to become more broadly decent because the casual disrespect for ideas and beliefs is the engine that drives the rage we see.
Those on the right, who value tradition and are skeptical, wary, fearful, or otherwise resistant to change should keep in mind what they know to be true: that the old ways aren’t always the best ways. More importantly, they must not assume that those with radical ideas are bent on destruction, or that their desire to effect change is evidence of a wish to tear down the civilized world and introduce barbarism. Whatever one thinks of the virtue of the ideas they espouse, one should try to credit them with decent motives and engage them accordingly.
Those on the left, who are eager for change and confident that the change will be good, should honestly face the reality that change brings inherent risk, that unintended consequences often lead to unexpected and undesirable — and sometimes catastrophic — outcomes. More importantly, they should keep in mind that those who oppose them are not consumed by hatred and a desire to return to an ignoble past, but rather by a wish to preserve and defend what they sincerely believe is good.
I am a man of the right. As long as hatred, bigotry, and small-mindedness are the motives imputed to me because of the views I hold, I must struggle to assume the decency of those with whom I disagree. But I do believe that most people — left and right — are decent; that everyone I know personally is a decent person who wants to make the world better, and that that’s true of most people; and that the ugliness we see springs more from human frailty and imperfection than from malice.
Perhaps the most destructive word introduced into our popular lexicon is hate. It’s time to be a little more charitable in our assessment of motives so that we can discuss the worthiness of ideas rather than attacking the people who hold them.
Published in Culture
I separate leadership from rank and file when doing this. When I do that I find that respect for views is much less warranted. This is also mostly how I handle what is going on with the Republican lack of support for President Trump. Most of the negative viewpoints here at Ricochet are really meant to diminish the influential voices against Trump, not so much directed at ordinary republican voters who choose not to support him. In my opinion.
Susan, respectfully — and you know I think the world of you — that last bit is nonsense: you’ve done anything but kept to yourself.
You’re a prolific writer here on Ricochet, and your content is available to the world. To the extent that you write about ideas, values, and thoughtful subjects (and you do), and do it in a civil manner (and you do), I think you’re doing just what were talking about: trying to share conservative ideas with an audience which you assume has good intentions and is capable of understanding.
Beyond that, I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. Changing minds is hard. It requires taking the time to have discussions with people, to listen to their views and try to understand where we have common understanding. That’s why I’ve always maintained that, practically speaking, the only productive way to do it is to respectfully engage an opponent in front of an audience of people who can witness the contrast of thought and, often, civility that distinguishes your position.
In a sense, that’s what Ricochet is: a civil discussion. To the extent that non-conservatives visit Ricochet, they represent that audience of potentially undecided viewers.
Well, yes. But you have to admit that the exchanges I’m likely to have are with other conservatives who share a lot of my views. Not Progressives who disagree with me; I doubt that we have all that many here.. I’d love to think, though, that the P’s are reading what I have to say, but that’s hardly an exchange.
Fair enough. And you’re right that the mode of expression is different: in a conversation with a progressive, the audience gets to be impressed by your calm demeanor in the face of fairly obvious nuttiness. That’s a big plus. Whereas here, the progressive or neutral reader merely gets to observe that (1) you make sense, and (2) you’re charitable to those who disagree with you.
I have to admit, it’s a lot easier to write graciously than to talk to progressives graciously in person. ;)
I have a dear friend. Sometimes I wonder why we are friends; we have almost nothing in common. We disagree about practically everything. And yet I Love her. I wince when she refuses to talk about the things we disagree on. And she’ll call people names just because she disagrees with them. But she is, at bottom, a warm and sensitive person. She certainly would never hurt anybody. We just never discuss how we disagree. Sometimes I forget, when she is on a tear. But it doesn’t happen often. I’ve just learned to live with her peculiar ways of thinking. We talk on the phone a few days a week at times. I call her, for example, if I need help cooking something.
I was just sort of thinking about this, right before I opened Ricochet. I was listening to Barbara Streisand. I have a couple of her CDs. Has a great voice. And when she doesn’t use her mouth for singing, really dumb things come out of it. But so what? As long as someone on the Left isn’t blocking my way, or otherwise hurting someone, I say to ignore them. If you can, try to make a friend. Even just a surface friendship. Life is too short and crazy to get bogged down with being angry, or worse.
After reading this, I find it hard to fathom your rejection of President Trump.
What has this to do with Trump? He is President. My friend is not. He has a duty to the world that neither I nor my friend does. Now that you bring this up, I’ve noticed this about Trump’s defenders: They want to make it that he isn’t President. He’s just one of the boys. I reject this notion as dangerous. I don’t think it is even fair to Trump. I am more respectful of him, in this way. I expect more from him. And the fact that he refuses to meet my expectation therein lay my contempt.
That’s a reasonable and thoughtful approach. Trump is from a truly privileged background and his customary behavior exhibits that. He has political opposition in a Democrat Party falsely claiming Americans have privilege, based on their color, and other false claims based on ethnicity and religious beliefs that are in large part why Donald Trump is POTUS. If these behaviors permeate the political community, it doesn’t take long for it to occupy that domain completely. So, try to enjoy where we are.
“They want to make it that he isn’t President. He’s just one of the boys.”
I haven’t seen that idea expressed. What I have seen and what I agree with is that he is the best option we have at the moment, not that he is the perfect person for the job or even that he is an ethical person in his personal life.
I haven’t agreed with all his choices and I was concerned with his ethical choices prior to him assuming office. That said compared to Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Mueller, Brennan, Rosenstein, Feinstein, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and a host of others in Washington who have done truly appalling things in their official capacities, I would surely trust him better and yes I would trust him over Mike Pence by a long shot.
I would also add that I have been an elected official, and have dealt with government for over 40 years in the LA area representing clients and after those experiences I would say that almost every high ranking official and bureaucrat I have dealt with is a criminal ( with a few exceptions) who blatantly violates people’s rights with impunity and doesn’t give a damn. Often they don’t even know or care what the consequences of their actions are and are only concerned how those actions affect themselves. LA is that corrupt. So is the State of California. They are both pay to play Democrat playgrounds. It would be nice to have great people with integrity in office, but they are a rare commodity, so we need to go with our best choice at the time. That is Trump.