© 2024 KRWG
News that Matters.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Enough with the civility already!

  Have I lost my senses? Not at all. What I refer to here is a bogus "civility," a de-politicizing politeness that obscures the substance of an argument. Policing "tone" or complaining about "political correctness," without honestly engaging in the substance, is a diversionary tactic. It deflects citizens from a substantive debate about our politics - about policies and legislation that affect our lives and the choices available to our children. What could be less civil than this brand of "civility?"

 

If you watch politics over several cycles, you will notice a perennial cat and mouse game over public debates. It is most pronounced in national politics where debates are televised and command a large audience. It is often a good strategy for underdog candidates to call for a debate. For the candidate lagging in opinion polls and media coverage, in need of a boost and seeking an opportunity to embarrass their opponent, it makes sense to debate. Likewise, for the candidate who is ahead, debates are strategically risky. Why offer the challenger a platform and risk fallout from a disappointing debate performance? Candidates will actually switch attitudes about debates in the course of a campaign, Candidate A favoring debates when he is behind, and less interested while he is the frontrunner.

 

This game is being played out in both of our dominant political parties. Among the Republicans, Donald Trump has declined to participate in two debates without damaging his standing in the polls; and last week, campaign strategist Joel Benenson, representing Democrat Hillary Clinton, told CNN she might not debate opponent Bernie Sanders anymore unless the senator moderates his "tone." Invoking the politics of civility, Benenson said, "This is a man who said he'd never run a negative ad ever... Let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions."

 

Clinton campaign operatives have been crying foul since January about so-called "negative ads" that articulate a political critique of the Democratic Party. Sanders has been an independent for decades and has long been critical of the Democratic Party's ties to Wall Street, arguing with reason that the capitalist class maintains an oligarchic influence on the legislative and executive branches of government. Whether one looks favorably on this critique or not, is it uncivil? Of course not. This is how tone-policing is used to deflect attention from an argument. Sanders can be unsparing in his criticism, but he is arguing about substance, not throwing mud at individuals.

 

The politics of civility also resurrects the decades-old zombie phrase "political correctness" to neutralize substance. It is usually but not exclusively wielded against liberals. Chillingly, Donald Trump has begun employing it to describe not just arguments or attitudes, but foundational ideas like due process of law. For example, at a rally in St. Louis, Trump lamented the peaceful removal of protesters from his rally, complaining that "nobody wants to hurt each other anymore" and that police officers were forced "to be politically correct in the way they take them out." Trump has regularly called for violent confrontations with protesters, and narrowly avoided charges of incitement in North Carolina.

 

As much as I prefer debates to be carried out with respect and charity towards an opponent's arguments, the need for civility is secondary to the need for substance. Freedom of speech is of little use when one cannot distinguish criticism from mudslinging. "Civility" can regulate itself once we concern ourselves with rigor.

--

Algernon D'Ammassa writes the "Desert Sage" column for the Deming Headlight and Sun News papers. Write to him at DesertSageMail@gmail.com.