A Very Good Question: What Does 'Civility' Mean? Exactly?

[pampango]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/a-very-good-question-what-does-civility-mean-exactly/69290/

It has quickly become a question of whether political discourse has become too inflamed, and whether this over-the-top rhetoric is in part responsible for the violence we've just seen. Most fair-thinking and reasonable people seem to agree that we should restore a larger sense of civility to our political speech, but what I have yet to see from anyone is a constructive attempt to define what the proper guidelines of political speech really are.

Everyone seems to say, "we need to be more civil!" without actually putting forward positive advice on what constitutes responsible vs. irresponsible speech. I may be a pessimist, but this Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" approach to irresponsible political speech seems like a pretty ineffective way to fix the problem, because without any rules of thumb to go by, any attempt to condemn a politician's irresponsible speech is just doomed to be deflected as partisan politics.

I would love to see a list of common sense rules (similar to Michael Pollan's food rules) that serve as good reminders of civil discourse. What would you like to see on such a list? My first one, for example: "Never speak with the insinuation that your opponents do not have the best interest of Americans at heart." If we had a set of guidelines that both sides could appeal to, it would be a heck of a lot easier to call out the people that aren't acting well.

This is a worthy challenge. An easy starting example would be: no advertising imagery suggesting lethal violence or the threat of same. Nooses, guillotines, ammo, guns. But those are gimmes. I am sure readers have more creative and useful examples. If you send them in, I'll compile and share them. These could be useful as tests against which to measure upcoming ads, talk-show soliloquys, etc. (Below, fax sent to former Rep. Bart Stupak, because of his vote for "Obamacare"; image from TPM.)

[xchrom]

1. here's a definition

ci·vil·i·ty
   /sɪˈvɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
courtesy; politeness.
2.
a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.
3.
Archaic . civilization; culture; good breeding.
Use civility in a Sentence
See images of civility
Search civility on the Web
Origin:
1350–1400; ME civilite < MF < L cīvīlitāt- (s. of cīvīlitās ) courtesy. See civil, -ity

—Related forms
o·ver·ci·vil·i·ty, noun

—Synonyms
1. affability, amiability, manners, tact.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civility

[BridgeTheGap]

2. Voters determine what it means and whether or not the demeanor of a campaign

will help them in determing their vote. Given freedom of speech, you can't stop people from being un-civil. But voters can sure make them pay UNLESS both sides engage with a lack of civility.

[Bragi]

3. Good question

At minimum, it means not insulting people with whom we disagree, and refraining from using language that states/suggests that people with whom we disagree have no legitimate role to play in our democracy.

[bettyellen]

4. both Olberman and Matthews were very specific- taking issue w/ imagery laced with violence

just because the poster missed it, doesn't mean it didn;t happen.

[PBS Poll-435]

5. As recently said, it means we as a country can disagree without being "disagreeable" nt

[handmade34]

6. as someone said recently

what is going on in our society goes way beyond incivility

civility is having public restrooms in public places or opening a door for someone, what we have happening in the political realm and elsewhere is inhuman/inhumane

[JBoy]

7. If the GOP would just stop LYING, that would take 1/2 the wind out of their rhetoric.

It's hard to say "The CBO estimates my opponent's bill would increase the deficit by $2.7 billion, therefore he's a socialist, a Marxist, and hates America."

[emulatorloo]

8. Criticize and discuss the ideas, don't demonize the person.

It is pretty simple.

[Little Star]

9. I think calling other people liar does not.....

bode well for civility nor does it lead to productive conversation. Do not justify your own actions with the excuse that the other side called us names first. There has to be a better way to make people see what their own side of the isle are doing. Maybe we all need to use more productive language and just stop it with the destructive language. Taking the high road does not equal shutting up. It means to be honest about our side (we have faults too) and to find a better way to say that vitriolic language is unacceptable.