Civility: A Bedrock Value
What is causing this degeneration of civilized behavior? Power always invites the worst sorts of conduct, and a chance at winning power—athletic, political, or ideological—justifies cruder methods. It will demonize a respected adversary is as inferior, evil, or even contemptible. To achieve arguably worthy goals, advocates become unable to express even begrudging respect for a person who represents defeat. Instead, ideologues attack character, belittle opposing values, and impugn the reputations of their adversaries. The attitude seems to be “Anything to win!”
Using division, propaganda, and manipulation to win speaks poorly of both the content of the ideas and the basic character of those who use such methods. If we really believe that the core beliefs a group advocates are better, then those who hold them would seek to persuade others of their merit. Using domination rather than persuasion implies that a group doubts its own beliefs or that perhaps the group has a purpose apart from those supposed beliefs. For example, does everyone who cites their concern for racism or gender bias really care about those issues, or are they merely a means to gaining power?
Closely tied to doubts about group’s core values is the possibility that people actually come to see their rivals as inferior. Since many who think of themselves as “liberal” are highly educated, do they come to believe that they are smarter than non-liberals? The rhetoric suggests that many do. Cintra Wilson’s screed is a good example. Her writing is angry, vile, and contemptible; but, despite her implications, her ideas are not intelligent, far from it!
I get weary of the hate-filled contempt spewed at President George W. Bush. It began after the 2000 election with claims of “stealing the election,” though every count and recount in Florida confirmed that he won and would have won without intervention of the Supreme Court; but the Court was right in ending the legal shenanigans perpetrated by Al Gore’s allies. President Bush has not been a perfect President, and I have huge areas of disagreement with him. However, he is not Adolph Hitler incarnate, and his leadership regarding the War on Terror has not been filled with lies, especially concerning Saddam Hussein and the likelihood of WMDs, opinions shared by President Clinton before him. The steady drumbeat of antipathy is political and ideological, and it is unworthy of American civilization.
The recent attacks on Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, such as the one mentioned above, are equally disrespectful, political, and mean-spirited. The values espoused by the Left are not the dominant values of the citizenry, even if those who hold them dominate the media, academia, and the Democratic Party. The “Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor” line is not only incorrect and irrelevant; it is absurdly foolish. Christians still constitute a majority of Americans, granted of many different denominations, but disparaging Jesus is just dumb, to say nothing of continuing the messianic pretensions of Barack Obama. By the way, most of us think Jesus was far more and far greater than any "community organizer."
I am a Christian, conservative if not libertarian, and traditional in most of my values. At the same time, I have some very progressive ideas, in certain areas. I am willing to discuss anything. What troubles me is that hardly anyone really wants to talk. Many like to argue, but despite our phraseology, no one typically “wins” an argument. The very nature of such exchanges tends to set peoples’ positions in concrete, from which they will not budge. For Christians, this need to be right is nothing less that arrogance and pride; when it permits the expression of disrespect and hostility toward fellow believers, it is sinful. Furthermore, the wisest method for determining wisdom and the will of God is consensus, a state we cannot achieve through argument and strife.
I have invested more than 20 years of my ministry life in Christian or Biblical peacemaking, using methods such as negotiation and mediation to help people resolve disagreements. I know it is possible to have thoughtful, civil conversation regarding difficult issues without anger, insult, or accusations. The question is why aren’t such dialogs more common. I have already suggested 2 of the primary reasons. Party or ideological candidates seeking power only want to win and will use whatever they deem necessary to gain victory and the power it assures them. Otherwise, most people just don’t realize there is a better way, not only to choose candidates, but also to find the best answers to difficult problems.
At a church dinner recently, I sat with a couple that I don’t know well. The wife sings with me in choir, and we got into a friendly round of comments about several groups that would meet while we were in rehearsal. We both agreed we might be too outspoken for the discussion of election year politics (Just because I’m a peacemaker doesn’t mean I always act like one!). I went on to make a couple of comments, only to find out that my friend from choir disagrees with me regarding which of the candidates we support and regarding abortion. The amusing thing was that she let me blather on before wryly advising me that she didn’t share my opinions. The manner of our conversation, however, demonstrated the very thing I’m getting at, here. We can disagree amiably, with humor and civility.
American culture has lost a great deal in rejecting its Judeo-Christian heritage. We have rejected authority, common decency, and mutual respect, qualities that are largely well-regarded in much of the rest of the world. In the name of progress, civilization has actually regressed into a kind of paganism that is often visceral, angry, and even violent. The ultimate irony is the angry rhetoric of many advocating “peace.” Intolerance is common among those promoting tolerance. William Watkins made his point well when he titled his book The New Absolutes. Thomas Sowell nailed it, too, when he wrote of The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, about those who seem to think that only their perspective is legitimate. Such thinking encourages incivility and the decline of civilization.
While it isn’t clearly related, ignorance is obviously another mark of the decline of civilization, and it is related to the anger and hostility that is becoming more common. In a strange alignment with the elites, ignorance also breeds intolerance. The one group does so condescendingly, thinking themselves superior; the other does so simply by knowing nothing, a condition encouraged by the elites through a poorly performing, pubic education system, a failure that may well be intentional. I especially enjoy the charge of ignorance directed at people like me, not because I lack education—I have 2 degrees and read extensively—but because I hold values they, the educated elite, reject. By believing what I believe, by their view, I am ignorant (not unlike a similar conclusion that, by nature, being white, I must be a racist, despite my extensive history as a ESL and refugee tutor).
Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this decline is that parallel, synchronous decline among Christian people. I am saddened most by the anger and hostility I hear from my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether from fear or despair, I have too often observed ardent pro-lifers or gay right opponents speaking abusively of or to those who advocate contrary opinions. We don’t win arguments that way. We don’t win people to Christ that way. Jesus didn’t deal with his worst adversaries that way. His harshest words and actions were reserved, not for unbelievers with opposing views, but for supposed religious leaders.
I have a suggestion for my fellow Americans and for my fellow Christians siblings. Try talking kindly to those with whom you disagree. Be patient, persuasive, thoughtful, and engaging. In place of scorn and disrespect, try honoring your adversary with attentiveness; listen with a goal to understanding what and why they think as they do. Then you may respond in a manner that encourages them to understand what and why you believe as you do. Mutual understanding is a good first step toward civility, and it is also the best way to win converts to your way of thinking.
As I intimated above, one reason for the antagonism between us is a fear of being wrong. When a person is confident in his or her beliefs, there is no need to hide behind rudeness or disrespect. My fellow choir member mentioned one particular reason for her opinion about abortion, and it is a concern I will explore. Even if one's view of an issue is correct doesn’t settle all issues and questions. With abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, both sides share an interest in reducing the number of abortions; civil interaction might allow that goal to be achieved, without necessarily resolving the overall issue.
I do relish a future that continues the trends toward incivility I see today. I am not encouraged by the prospects of a Church that abandons respectful and loving conversation, even with adversaries; and, frankly, many have difficulty dealing with disagreement among believers! I do believe we can turn things around. There is a power in love, as the old song goes, "wonder working power." Yes, it is centered in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but it is available to all who would love as he loved. In such love, I see a renewal of civility.
Comments