Civility

Have we become an uncivilized nation? Or is it just that the lack of civility is now more apparent given the instant and continuous availability the various forms of media newscast?

When our country was founded, dueling wasn’t uncommon. If one gentleman in some way offended another, they met with weapons in hand and attempted to resolve their differences.

This frequently resulted in the death of one or both of them.

Did it make the winner right, though? Or just prove who was the better shot or swordsman?  Presumably it solved the immediate problem although on a larger scale one would think that's probably not an ideal solution.

Congress, itself, has not always been a model of decorum. While there would undoubtedly be disputes of opinion as to the appropriate course of action in any political body, “cane fights” were not uncommon on the floor of Congress during the early years of our Republic.

Charles Thompson, the first Secretary of the Continental Congress and primary recorder of the proceedings that lead to the creation of the United States Constitution was frequently either a participant in or the cause of some of these fights, amid allegations that he had either misquoted or misrepresented a delegate’s position.  After all, there were no tape recorders or video cameras to allow instant replays of what really happened, not to mention the lack of microphones for the speakers.  Some misinterpretation was kind of inevitable.

Being the Recording Secretary in any organization is a thankless job. It is one of the most powerful positions though, because he who writes down what happens gets to determine the facts.

One has to wonder whether even these incidents in Congress were more civilized than that which we’ve seen from both Congress and the public in recent months. When members of Congress engage in similar activity, who can blame the public for following their example? Yelling “You Lie” at the President or “Baby Killer” while another member of Congress has the podium sends a message from those who are supposed to be our nation’s leaders and are supposed to set the example for the rest of us. 

A message that civility is unnecessary and the one with the loudest voice is the one who is right.

There are places where mobs, while maybe not effective, may be appropriate.

Marches on the Mall in Washington have traditionally been a place that groups can express their support or displeasure with a societal and governmental position. Protests on the sidewalk or steps in front of the courthouse were necessary to get the attention of sufficient numbers to allow movements with regard to the rights of women and minorities.

But the difference was most of those had some element of organization. People were making their presence known and tended to listen to individuals who had thought out their message and were trying to persuade those who were either undecided or had a difference of opinion.

The flash mobs that appear now in many movements aren’t designed to persuade as much as to intimidate. Religious persecution through the ages should have taught us that individuals who are either afraid or in pain will say most anything at the time. They don’t necessarily mean it, though.

“Tea Party” protesters who show up with guns strapped to their waists and vaguely worded threats probably do little to help their cause, since their actions are so extreme as to alienate those who might be undecided. Regardless of my actual feelings, if I’m unfortunate enough to get trapped in one of those groups, I’m like to at least appear to agree until I can safely get away.

Never argue with the crazy guy with a gun. That’s one of those easy rules by which most of us can live.

It’s like the roadside preachers who stand and scream at passing cars. I’ve never heard of or read about a single person who’s been converted through the actions of these people. Instead, most come off as nut jobs who ought to be avoided.

Compare that to a polite, even passionate, discussion over a cup of coffee, where there’s an exchange of ideas and respect for the other person, listening to their concerns and thoughts and then countering with the opposing viewpoints. Even if an agreement isn’t reached, most people will likely come away with a respect for the other person and their convictions.

I’d submit discussion is a lot more likely to win folks in the middle over than screaming obscenities or epithets at them.  No one is likely to win over the people at the far end of either spectrum.  They're not the majority  although it may seem that way at times since they are the most visible in the media.

Maybe they weren’t taught any better and don’t know not to interrupt, to speak politely and to wait your turn to talk.  They do no one any favors, though, since they provide fodder to their opponents to discredit their position and sometimes alienate even those that might agree with them by their extreme tactics.

This is not good for either our country or our society and it doesn’t appear likely to change in the immediate future unless each of us decides to make it better. Turn off the nut jobs, point out that they’re not helping their cause (from a safe location, of course).

And start listening to the other side for a change, instead of shouting at them. It may be that we find we still have more in common than first appeared.