Let’s Save America with Civility

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

86 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels says:

    We can and should be civil, while being honest.

    Honesty compels us to acknowledge that some large majority of republicans believe that the 2020 election was rigged.
    A large majority witnessed the crimes and flagrant abuse of our Constitutional system committed by Trump and his circle and with each indictment, only grow more fervent in their desire to elevate him to the highest office in the land.

    This large majority ha made it clear they have no regard for the Constitution or our laws, and will refuse to accept any outcome which doesn’t leave them in power.

    This isn’t nutpicking because the nuts are not “on the fringes”: they are the heart and soul of the party. People like David Thornton are on the fringes and constitute no meaningful portion of the party.

    I can say these uncomfortable truths with harsh words or soft, in calm tones or anger, but the truth won’t change.
    At this historical moment, no person running as a Republican can be trusted to defend the Constitution, at any level.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The above is true but terrifies people on our side because nobody has any idea how to get tens of millions of people back to some sense of political rationality. Based on historical examples, the Republicans can just hold the line until they win over everybody else and then do whatever they want. They only have to win once, we have to win every time. I think the online liberals and never Trumpers at the Bulkwark are better able to deal with this emotionally because we aren’t prone to look for the best in everybody as none online liberals tend to do.Report

  2. Damon says:

    I take minor exception to the comment about OT posters having open minds. I think the range of opinions and thus the quality of content has narrowed from “back in the day”….ofc this was years ago. YMMV.

    I no longer talk about politics much. I don’t care anymore. As I told someone running for office once. “You helped pass the largest tax increase in the state and here you are touting that you got 1M to improve a local road.” Even the republicans here are “liberal”. There is no point. I’m content to read others thoughts, make the occasional posting pointing out their hypocrisy and watch, with drink in hand, the fall of the empire. “May you live in interesting times.”Report

    • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

      Then the politicians have won. They wanted you disinterested, and they succeeded.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

        No. When your choice is between someone very liberal and slightly less liberal that the other guy, there is no material difference in the candidates. This has been the case for decades. Besides, the entire state reliably votes democratic both within the state and in congress, so my vote doesn’t matter, nor anyone’s else that doesn’t toe the line of the majority. My time is much more valuable improving myself and the quality of my own life instead.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

          One could argue the same about my situation down here, yet I vote, I have yard signs, I even write letters to the editor of the local small circulation weekly. I’d argue your vote matters, in as much as its part of your ticket to complaining later, to say nothing of the Constitutional responsibility you have as a citizen.Report

  3. Philip H says:

    The tell is in this statement:

    We’d probably be surprised at how much we agree on certain issues. For example, more than 70 percent of Americans support red flag laws. With respect to abortion, 83 percent support legality to some extent but only 34 percent say abortion should be legal in all circumstances. On the other hand, more than 70 percent believe that schools should involve parents on questions of gender identity and 69 percent say that birth gender should dictate which sports transgender students should be able to compete in. A staggering 91 percent support immigration and about two-thirds support various immigration reforms, depending on the exact proposal.

    Most politicians – and especially most who identify with the GOP – are perfectly comfortable ignoring these facts. It’s a contributor to why so many people are down the MAGA hole, and why so many are so willing to be uncivil. The people they elect to represent them don’t do so because the elected officials don’t actually care what their constituents want. Hyperpartisan gerryamndering exacerbates this. So too does the impulse from those same politicians to play on people’s fears for personal and political power.

    As but one example – down here in Mississippi the rate of unreimbursed care would be significantly cut by Medicaid expansion, and around 10,000 permanent decently paying jobs would be added to the state’s tax base (or so the Republican sate economist has reported). Yet our governor is running for reelection touting his “success” in rejecting Medicaid expansion, because he somehow believes that private employers can be induced to offer more and better insurance coverage to employees (despite no plan to lead that and no evidence it will work). But because he’s running on fear, he will likely be reelected by the 63% of Mississippians who vote for the GOP.

    Civility won’t change any of that. Sadly confrontation won’t either. I don’t honestly know what will.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Philip H says:

      On the other hand, more than 70 percent believe that schools should involve parents on questions of gender identity and 69 percent say that birth gender should dictate which sports transgender students should be able to compete in.

      And this is exceptional nonsense.

      This is taking the two most popular anti-trans issues, one of which is fundamentally pointless (The amount of trans students athletes is probably less than the amount of anti-trans-student-athletes laws.) and the other is good ole fashion parental homophobia demanding that schools out queer children, and a thing we know, factually, is dangerous. (Fun fact about that poll: 34% of people polled seem to _know_ that, as they think ‘children who identify as transgender won’t be accepted or loved by their parents.’. Which raises the uncomfortable fact that at least 5% of the total said _that_, and then proceeded to say that schools should, in fact, inform their parents, presumably under the idea that such children _shouldn’t_ be loved or accepted by their parents.)

      Also fun fact: Asking questions about what parents should be able to do WRT to any sort of sex issues at all in education is…always full of incredibly stupid responses as people are _really_ bad at understanding any of that. We have equally dumb polling about teaching sex education. A good chunk of this is that people in general underestimate how children are, in fact, sentient beings who make decisions. These is why we have actual professionals figuring this stuff out. I know it sounds anti-democratic to say ‘The public is actually not very well informed about this and tends to treat all children as if they are six, and it’s not a great idea to listen to everything they say’, but it is true.

      Again, I repeat what I have mentioned before: 40% of homeless minors are queer. And about 10% ‘should’ be, statistically, that’s about the percentage for that age group…and realize that 40% is way more than it appears at first glance, it’s not a fourfold increase. Because it actually increased the amount of homeless minors in general. I.e., if there ‘should be’ 1000 homeless minors, with 100 of them queer and 900 not, what we actually ended up with is 1500 homeless minors, 600 queer and 900 not. Because being queer either gets them kicked out of their house, or creates an environment that is so abusive or unwelcoming they cannot stay. By their parents.

      We’ve actually known all this for _decades_.

      So we are at the point where, after relentless screaming about trans people for years, we’ve got sorta two-anti-trans policies that have ‘reasonable support’, in a place that, traditionally, people are very stupid about. And being very obviously stupid about at least one of these. (The other is just nothingness blown up into nonsense.)

      But of course, has nothing to do with the ‘ drag queen story hours’ that was mentioned in the previous paragraph.

      And I do urge people on the left to talk to others about these issues, not because the left is wrong, but because _the people who think these are important or good ideas have been lied to_.Report

  4. KenB says:

    Asking for civility without epistemic humility is a lost cause. Otherwise the response is always a Goldwaterian “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”Report

    • KenB in reply to KenB says:

      And/or “the other side is worse!”Report

    • Philip H in reply to KenB says:

      How, exactly, would you like us liberals to extend epistemic humility to the people continuing to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to KenB says:

      There’s too much of an epistemic divorce.

      Like, the inability to imagine how someone else would see something is, like, *BAD*.Report

    • Pinky in reply to KenB says:

      That’s a good point. I don’t think it’s insurmountable, but it can be an obstacle.

      As for disagreeing and moving on, I have gradually become a fan of the Ignore function on this site. There are some people that I can’t have meaningful or productive exchange with. I hate the idea of blocking someone, and as a practical matter it can make it difficult to follow a thread sometimes, but overall it saves everyone noise and frustration.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

        It’s also the opposite of what he OP is asking you to do . . . .Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

          “But sometimes we have to realize and accept that we aren’t going to convince the other person. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and just move on.”

          Sometimes that includes not talking anymore.Report

      • KenB in reply to Pinky says:

        I tend to do a mental ignore but don’t use the actual function here. I do a lot of my comment reading on SOTD where it doesn’t apply anyway.

        Some people just like to spar, and that’s ok, but it takes two people to commit to a productive conversation. No reason to be obligated to talk to someone wearing boxing gloves.Report

  5. LeeEsq says:

    The burden of civility always seems to rest on the Democratic side of politics while Republicans get to make the most outlandish and false accusations. Meanwhile, the Democrats are bound to speak in dulcet tones.Report

  6. DensityDuck says:

    Be civil? With Trumpists?

    Like they say, “when nine good people and one Nazi sit down at the same table, ten Nazis get up.”Report

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

      And yet when we point out that a single National Socialist is indeed sitting at the table we get p[pommeled for it.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

      “When nine good people and one [person who thinks the 2020 election was rigged] sit down at the same table, ten [persons who think the 2020 election was rigged] get up.”

      We can use any terminology we want, it doesn’t change the fact that those who think the 2020 election was rigged are not willing or even capable of participating in a democracy.

      If they can’t accept basic objective facts, it doesn’t matter what we call them, or how civil and polite we are. A republican democracy only works if its citizens agree on basic facts and are willing to share power as equals.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        “When nine good people and one [person who thinks the 2020 election was rigged] sit down at the same table, ten [persons who think the 2020 election was rigged] get up.”

        This is not true.

        This is false.

        This is, like, so not true that I am grateful that you posted it.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

          People who reject reality aren’t capable of participating in democracy.

          So when we “sit down” meaning allow them to participate, we’re accepting that their premise is legitimate.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Of course people who reject reality are capable of participating in democracy! They show up! They vote for the politician who lies to them best!

            This is something that has happened since before you were born!

            How have you not noticed this until now?

            Have you been denying reality?Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            One of the nasty things about the human condition is pretty much everyone “rejects reality” in one way or another.

            We have democracy and rule of law to deal with that reality.

            So all those people who want to believe the election was stolen? That doesn’t really matter as long as they’re willing to follow the process for resolving that kind of dispute. Claiming they have those beliefs is a way to virtue signal for most. The vast bulk aren’t willing to behave like you’d think they would behave if they really believed it.

            It’s like how most people claim to believe in God but still take their kids to the doctor if they get sick. Humans compartmentalize really well.

            If memory serves we had about the same percent of Team Blue think that Gore won the election after Bush v Gore. The difference then wasn’t the American people and our willingness to believe stupid things, the difference is Trump was willing to use that while Gore was not.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

          “This is, like, so not true that I am grateful that you posted it.”

          Chip provides a valuable service to this website in that he’s That Guy who says That Thing that people would yell at you for making things up if you suggested that someone might say.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Civility is not good but it is not a good unto itself. I don’t think the stance in this post is uncommon but I am always perplexed by it. It seems to be more about the psychology of the conflict averse than anything else.

    Conflict aversion is not a sign of caring. Sometimes conflict is caring. Conflict is also necessary or unavoidable at times.

    But there is a deep and persistent belief among some percentage of Americans and professional media writers/pundits that the deepest and serious issues can always be discussed “civilly.” I am not sure that this is true. We just had a story about a woman who was murdered because a grumpy and disgruntled man (now also dead) hated the pride flags she had in her store. I can think of satirical examples which would point out the absurdity of the civility uber allies advocates but those would be blocked by our aggressive word filter because civility. If you are discussing the fundamental rights of people to exist and thrive and not be second class citizens or worse because of their race, religion, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, sexuality, etc, there is no way to discuss this in the dulcet tones of a garden party. If people are arguing that some groups should be second class citizens or worse, it demands a hard and loud pushback.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Conflict aversion is not a sign of caring. Sometimes conflict is caring. Conflict is also necessary or unavoidable at times.

      It may well surprise you to know that I disagree with this vehemently (!). Conflict aversion is SELF-Care for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is a deep seated aversion to the strong negative emotions it necessarily carries. Even online here, I find most conflict to be a reflection of deep seated psychoses – mine included. Getting rid of most of it would be a grand achievement for humanity.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

        I meant conflict aversion is not always a sign of caring for others and this cannot be denied. Yes, it would be nice if we can all get along but that has never been the history of humanity and probably never will be.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      There are also the Secret Disney Liberals (TM) who believe that “wouldn’t it be nice if everybody was nice” and the right procedures can get us there. The fact is that there are eight billion people in the world and many completely contradictory and we need to deal with this without killing each other. Lots of people are not nice and will never be nice.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      In order for me to not be a second class citizen, you need to act in certain ways, believe certain things, and give me lots of money/resources.Report

  8. Chris says:

    In the language of the internet, solidarity >>>>> civility. Solidarity has some things in common with civility (a common norm in movements built around solidarity is “calling in, not calling out,” e.g.), but it assumes at least basic common goals and values. Solidarity attempts to find commonality beneath differences, and it requires action, rather than mere politeness. It is a serious commitment, rather than a superficial friendliness. And it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to have solidarity with people whose basic goals and values conflict with mine, in theory or in practice, in such a way that work towards the realization of their goals and values will necessarily make working towards/realizing mine more difficult or impossible. No civility without solidarity.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

      Multi-culturalism.

      It just doesn’t work.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why do the loudest yelps for tolerance come from those who insist that it doesn’t work?Report

      • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

        Part of the work in advocating for solidarity is in showing that a lot of differences that we think are important — racial, cultural, religious — actually divide people who are actually very similar on a deeper level (as workers, e.g.). In mainstream American political discourse, “The 99%” is a framing meant to do this, for example.

        Perhaps there is more work to do here in a “multicultural” society than in a culturally homogenous one, but no one said these things should be easy, and “civility” certainly never solved these problems, just glosses over them in the service of power and the status quo.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

          Here’s something that I said a million years ago that I still don’t see particular need to update:

          Multiculturalism is accepting different attitudes for such things as human rights, what they entail, and who they extend to.

          Such things as “should women vote?” or “should people who don’t own property vote?” are questions that different cultures have achieved different answers to and some of these cultures aren’t compatible with other cultures.

          Multiculturalism says “it’s okay that other cultures have reached different conclusions” and the attitude that says “you know what, that culture needs to change is not multiculturalism”.

          There are matters of taste and matters of morality and multiculturalism allows for multiple matters of morality.

          A lot of people use Epcot as their definition of multiculturalism.

          For me, I just see a monoculture with a lot of restaurants.Report

          • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

            It is difficult, if not impossible, to have solidarity with people who believe that certain groups of people, by virtue of immutable traits like race or biological sex, are inferior or should be treated as such. One of the hopes of most forms of leftism is that by encouraging solidarity as, say, workers, we can help people to shed beliefs that others are or should be treated as inferior for other reasons.

            I recommend the Combahee River Collective Statement for a look at how this looks in the real world, where racial and gender divisions are unavoidable in praxis.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

              I’m down with saying that immigrants need to assimilate, I suppose.

              I’m not as good at figuring out how drawing the line *HERE* is obviously obligatory while drawing it *THAT* is obviously immoral, though.

              I enjoyed this part a lot: I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white heterosexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power.

              All too true. They’re very good at pretending to be allies, though. Undercutting the entire time.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                Part of the idea of solidarity, at least in the corner of the left I occupy, is an anti-nationalism, so “immigrants need to assimilate” is sort of category error.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                Sorry. We can change it to “Immigrants need to abandon norms that might have been locally acceptable in their old countries and need to adopt the norms that we have here.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Does this sound different if we are talking about conservative Christians who want to restrict their trans children from dressing a certain way?
                Or should we compel them to assimilate into secular culture and use proper pronouns?

                Again, no one demands multiculturalism more than conservatives.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Makes you see how someone might oppose multiculturalism, doesn’t it?Report

            • Chris in reply to Chris says:

              I screwed up that link ,and substituted praxis for practice, but you get the point.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            This seems like a false dilemma, where multiculturalism can’t enforce norms of behavior. it’s almost like a conservative caricature of extreme Portlandia liberalism.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              If your definition of “multiculturalism” is “EPCOT”, let me say that I am a full-throated supporter of multiculturalism.

              I really enjoy Italian food!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Good thing it’s not.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’d like to see your definition of multiculturalism, then.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Multiculturalism is just small l liberalism, where free people negotiate the boundaries of norms and laws.

                There isn’t a fixed point between what is allowed or prohibited but just a generally agreed upon construction.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                So, like, Dearborn can ban the Rainbow Flag on public property and San Francisco can fly it? Des Moines can have a creche in front of city hall and Portland can refuse to have one?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Ok this is where I ask you to read up on federalism and what it means.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Is that a “yes” or is that a “no”?

                Because if this wanders back around to “no, liberalism means that Dearborn can’t ban that, San Francisco can fly it, Des Moines can’t have a creche, and Portland is right to refuse one”, then I’m going to say that I don’t see how your definition is better than mine to the point where I should use yours instead.

                Indeed, I don’t see why you’re using yours if those are your answers.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If you were familiar with federalism, you’d know that the correct answer is “It depends.”

                Seriously, there is a whole lot written on what the boundaries are. Maybe even on this very website.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                In practice, it seems to present identically to “stacking the deck”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If you don’t like multiculturalism or federalism, that’s certainly an opinion you might have.

                But I’m just pointing out that multiculturalism works very well with enforcing cultural norms.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, I’m saying that your definition of multiculturalism is bad and inaccurate but you’re using it in order to stack the deck in your own favor.

                And accusing people who point that out of not understanding various other concepts instead of providing something close to a robust definition rather than appealing to liberalism and federalism.

                Are countries without federalism capable of multiculturalism, by the way?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You can define it differently than me, but the fact remains that for centuries or even millennia, people of different cultures have intermingled and negotiated various sets of norms and boundaries around behavior resulting in a varied landscape where things which are taboo here are allowed there or things which were forbidden then are allowed now.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Using that definition, can you give an example of a culturally homogenous society in the last, oh, hundred years or so?

                Keep in mind, if your example is one that allows me to say “Hey, they were intermingling and negotiating!”, then we’ll be in a place where your definition is too broad.

                And thus “bad”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Homogeneity is as vague a term as multiculturalism.
                No matter how monolithic a culture looks from the outside, it almost always multiple groupings and divisions where people think of themselves as separate and apart and incompatible.

                Which is my point. There has never been a place or time in which humans haven’t been forced to interact with people who think differently, worship differently, behave differently.

                And history shows all the myriad ways n which these encouonters have been resolved.

                What we call the Enlightenment didn’t happen by happenstance. It occurred at the end of and as a direct result of, several centuries of bloody warfare over cultural differences.

                To assert that “multiculturalism doesn’t work” is to ignore history and would require a staggering amount of evidence to support.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                People of previous centuries had multi-culturalism, but in general there was a dominate culture and the rules (especially religious laws) were written to reflect that.

                If you’re looking to history for “all cultures are treated equally, fairly, and with tolerance” then I’m not sure what you mean.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I hate to be that guy but I think you have to get into the question of what is culture? In the West for a very long time it was understood primarily in religious terms. In the 19th century there is still a religious component but it starts to become more of an ethno linguistic idea, until the multi ethnic empires mostly collapse after WW1 and eastern Europe is ethnically cleansed in WW2. Now I would say that ‘culture’ in addition to those other things is coming to have certain extra national political and social aspects, particularly with the decline of religion.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                I agree with all of that, but if we’re looking for a period in old history when the gov was used to promote multi-culturalism rather than to empower the dominate culture, then I’m not sure what we have as an example.

                Most of the multi-cultural places in history were also empires, where the dominate culture went to war with it’s neighbors to dominate and/or enslave them.

                Far as I can tell, the idea that the state shouldn’t be used for that is an American invention.Report

              • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                People have also, for a very long time, had restrictions on where foreigners could trade, when they could enter the city, etc. For millennia, people solved their problem with “the village on the other side of the hill by killing everyone in that village.

                I’d argue that the primary history of the human race is it’s continual behavior of butchery against the “not us”.Report