Theme: Definition of Civility
For every speaker can you all present your own definition of civility today, and civility 10 years ago?
Mike: Civility is about treating those who oppose you with respect. You can disagree without denigrating your opponent. That is same today as ten years ago but the ethic of civility has definitely declined over the decade.
Jeannie: Civility is the presence of good manners, the ability to walk in another person’s shoes. Patience. Kindness. Empathy. The ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Somehow over the last decade we have fallen away from our ability to listen more than speak. We too frequently rush to judgement and because we all are in such a hair on fire hurry our language to one another can be snippy and superficial. Partisanship is in overdrive and we have forgotten what a for CIA officer, now police officer says about his neighbors: “We all matter or none of us do.” (I really like Greg’s point below about decency.)
In their times, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi were both considered “uncivilized” by some. How do you think the definition of civility has changed over the years?
Tucker: I’m winging it here, but do feel it’s an important question. Civility should never be an excuse to shut down different viewpoints, unless those viewpoints promote violence and hatred. My old boss Carroll Campbell used to say, “your freedom to extend your arm proceeds to the tip of my nose.” I’d add that for me, civility means trying your hardest with people who see things differently not to question their motives, but instead stick to facts and one’s own beliefs. Mike had great points about active listening, too.
Mike: MLK’S Letter from the Birmingham Jail is model that argues for non-violent but “disruptive” opposition to complacency and violence. He did not say “sit by”… he’d say “move your feet” which the death of John Lewis brought back into more focus.
Greg: Civility is more substantive and important than mere “politeness.” It goes to a more basic quality of decency. It can be traced by the religious and the non-religious alike to the simple principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you would not like to have people spreading lies about you or your family, don’t spread lies about theirs. I don’ think the definition has changed in the last ten years but our political hearts have been hardened by recent experiences and so the practice of civility has declined.
Jeannie: Add Rep. John Lewis and his call for “good trouble” to the list. Young George Washington, when a teenager, pulled together a list of some 100 or so things required to make one civil. It’s a great list … thought not entirely in synch today … but in his time made all the sense in the world, and was highly aspirational. MLK, Ghandi, Lewis, Washington were mirrors reflecting the causes of their time. As society changes and we become less or more tolerant, or intolerant– we can look back in wonder at how far each generation has come and yet, how far we have to go.
Theme: Influence of Technology on Political Civility
How much of the current civil unrest is fueled by advancing technology? Do you think it’s better for individuals to exist in an online echo chamber or argue against those with completely opposing viewpoints
Mike: We need to re-establish some common platforms that all trust for information regardless of their “confirmation bias”. Where do you go to get “just the facts”? That used to be main stream media like NY Times. I had hoped (and argued with their chairman) that Google should be the platform but now that is tied up in other controversy.
Jeannie: Technology is an accelerant. Technology is a lit match in search of gasoline (some of it any way). We are more connected and yet some of us are father apart. Self-selecting only those things with which we agree really creates societal silos. I refer you to Edward R. Murrow’s speech to the Radio and Television News Director’s Association where he asserts that [technology] can do great things for society, or it can just be “lights and wires in a box.” Really great comms people (in my humble) have great peripheral vision – they see around them, and that includes knowing your rhetorical opponent’s weak arguments, as well as the strong ones. Challenge yourself to read things with which you do not agree. Test your thesis. Watch a different channel. Talk to someone who sees the world differently. It will make you a better communicator … and perhaps dare I say, “civil.” Said with a wink.
What kind of impact do you think social media and technology has had on civility?
Mike: Negative because it allows people to live in silos where they only hear what they already believe. The challenge is opening people up to content and information that may challenge their pre-disposed perspectives and beliefs.
Jeannie: Please see my answer above.
Technology and media have taken over at an increasing level over the past few years, leading to a massive spread of fake news and inaccurate reporting. Do you believe that this spread of biased/fake/inaccurate news has made a major impact on the ability for the different political parties to practice civility towards one another?
Tucker: The media environment has exploded, to the point where there are 4.1 million Google queries every minute. In an Internet minute, 195 thousand tweets are posted and 4.7 million YouTube videos are watched. Meanwhile, one recent study showed that true stories take 6 times as long on the internet to reach 1500 people as false ones. At the News Literacy Project, we encourage people to be very cautious about sharing information until they’ve considered their own emotional reaction, considered the source and its reliability, and considered the impact if the story isn’t accurate. Finally, as to what we as a society can do about the flood of bile and misinformation, we think people should start viewing these things the way people in the 60s started thinking about smoking, in the 70s about littering, and in the 80s about drunk driving. Take personal responsibility, and we all will benefit.
Mike: I think the label “fake news” is pejorative and political. Most news organizations try hard (maybe too hard) to be balanced and fair. If you read the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times every day (as I do) you will be mostly a well-informed and literate citizen. If you rely only on social media, you will get a lot of crap not worthy of your time. Tucker’s work on news literacy is extremely important.
Greg: Every technological and communications advance has been accompanied by risks, negatives, and unintended consequences. The printing press allowed for great literature to reach more people but also for trash, lies, and even pornography to also gain wider audiences. Television ushered in the “vast wasteland” of vapid content or worse. These are tools and, like all tools, their ultimate impact is dependent upon their moral or immoral, civil or uncivil use. The good news is that the pernicious use of social media is extremely well documented and discussed in our public discourse which is the first step towards reforming the tools and their use.
Jeannie: Technology has created cottage industries of malign actors who wish to weaponize information – from scoring political points, suppressing the vote, to selling you a fancier shampoo. Thankfully with the rise of weaponized information sectors, we also see the rise of fact checking organizations, and specialists in verifying or debunking information in real-time, and developing skill sets to detect deep fakes. So – here is where I would say, as they teach you in the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston – think critically (write beautifully and speak eloquently). We need to think critically and help others learn to do the same.
Theme: Intentional Return to Civil Debate
How do you think we can make a shift towards more civil discussions? What is something you believe can connect us all and put us back on the path of civility?
Mike: Begin every conversation by repeating what you just heard, even from someone you disagree with. “This is what I heard you say… is that correct?” Done with respect and honesty. If the other person knows you heard them and listened, they will be more willing to hear a counter argument.
Jeannie: We need to listen more than we speak.
I grew up in a household with a liberal mother and a conservative father. In terms of American civility, my hope always lied in the fact that I saw my mother and father sleep in the same bed at the end of a night full of their own political debates. It’s what I constantly held on to in terms of civility. Recently, I have had trouble not taking it “personally” when speaking to someone who supports a man that, I believe, represents the downfall of our democracy. How do I stay civil while debating someone who argues against fact? If one genuinely dislikes someone or that person’s positions, is it hypocritical to be civil to or about that person?
Mike: See above. Listen and be able to restate what the other person thinks in a non-argumentative way.
Jeannie: Mike nailed it. Also ask them why they hold that point of view or belief, then listen. And don’t roll your eyes.
I feel as though our values have become so superficial that we are going to need to do a lot of work, we are much too impatient and we don’t hold people accountable anymore. We have lost what it means to be respectful and know what’s right and wrong. How are we truly going to be able to pass this?
Mike: See above. Listen. And find people who you might disagree with. Don’t camp in our own secluded places with those whom we might only agree with. For example, I spend a lot of time with a true friend who is head of Focus On the Family here in Washington, DC. We disagree on practically everything but we enjoy our conversations and have strong disagreements but they always end in joy. We always say a prayer together, which I think helps.
Jeannie: Empathy. Understand the why of that person – who they are not just what they believe. People are really complicated and not at all one dimensional. You may have many other things in common that outweigh the things you do not. And what Mike said.
With everything going on in the world, do you think politicians will be able to come together eventually to, as you said, transform the country? If so, what do you think they could do to get on the right track
Mike: We need them to build better personal relationships. Hillary Clinton once told me the U.S. Senate was dysfunctional because the members did not know each other on a real, personal level. They should declare every Wednesday morning a “Fundraising Free Zone” and invite someone from the other side of the aisle to have breakfast.
Jeannie: I believe there will be a reckoning (not sure what) and the universe has a way of evening things out (not sure when). Someone once said to me you don’t miss clean water, until you don’t have it. We take so much for granted. Perhaps it is a result of being a “blessed and highly favored nation.” But I hold fast to the hope good will come when we realize we have to turn to one another not on one another.
If our political leaders are not presenting civility in their debates, how can the people of the country be civil? Do you believe there are measures that must be taken to move closer to civility? What could those measures be?
MIKE: Very simply a Golden Rule. I will not say anything bad about an opponent that I don’t want said about me. If I look at a proposed negative ad, can I think what it would be if the same ad was turned around and used against me? We need candidates who will turn to their media consultants and say, “That ad is beneath my dignity.”
Tucker: I mentioned above personal responsibility. So it starts with each of us and our own expectations and practices. It has to include leaders, and I believe a different president with a constitutionally-grounded, civil approach to the common good would be another big step forward (or back, depending on how you look at it!).
Greg: At the risk of seeming partisan, I believe electing Joe Biden will represent a huge step away from the abyss of “total incivility.” Yes, Biden did call Trump a clown in the first debate and told him to “shut up.” But, Biden’s instinct has always been to reach out and across and avoid the cheap shot. So, I am hopeful that we are about to be on a better path. A good recent piece by Charlie Warzel is helpful here, particularly if you substitute “political differences” for “conspiracy theories.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/opinion/qanon-conspiracy-theories-family.html)
Jeannie: If ever I write a book, one of the main characters will be named “Partisan Bickering.” He will be a politician and he will have a great awakening and change his ways … maybe his name. The challenge is to not get drawn into the maw of snark and bitterness. Think about your personal brand and values. Then support candidates who meet your expectations and hold them accountable.
Additional One-Off Questions:
This can be answered by anyone/everyone: Do you know of a country that shows ideal civility that America should be taking notes from? How do you think America’s international affairs are tainted by the discourse that is currently going on.
Mike: Yes, Australia.
Greg: Need look no farther than our neighbor to the North. And, yes, we are hurt by our current uncivil tone. It is harder to make deals with someone who keeps calling you a loser.
Jeannie: Take a look at Prime Minister’s Questions in the British House of Commons. You can look it up on Cspan. It’s fabulous. Talk about keeping leader’s humble and accountable!
What is the role for formal teaching in critical thinking, I wonder?
Tucker: Yes, so important. I’m a one-note guy on this, but would draw your attention to www.checkology.org which teaches critical thinking skills when it comes to information, dis- and mis-information. The curriculum started in American high schools, but is now open to the public for free (while it is also still being taught — at no cost to the school or student — in high schools across the country).
Mike: Check out a group I was involved in when I was in high school, long, long ago. Junior Statesmen (JSA.ORG). They are still around and teaching civility and good debate/citizenship at the high school level.
Jeannie: Yes! Yes! And yes! Amen and twice on Sunday. Read everything you can get your hands on too … really thoughtful columnists and writers have put word to paper on this topic.
Even though America is separated in many of our political views and values, do you believe there is a common goal that we are working towards through civility? If so, what do you think that is?
Tucker: …towards that more perfect union! To live in peace, strive for justice, achieve greater prosperity, without losing freedom. It’s a lot, i know!
Mike: Yes. How to listen and learn from each other even when we disagree. It ain’t that complicated.
Greg: I am optimistic in large part because I believe we can be “stronger at the broken places.” These recent times have been difficult but I think having lived through them has sensitized a lot of us to the damage that is done by incivility. I sense a renewed dedication to and urgency about the need to return to a “kinder gentler” political dialogue.
Jeannie: Love one another. We are all in this together.
Can you please explain what you mean by cross partisanship and why bipartisanship is “mushy”? Is it bad to be “mushy”?
Tucker: Ha, yes, thanks for asking! I appreciate the chance to expand on that. Conceptually, i believe 100% in bipartisanship. But in political circles the word came to be associated with ineffectual efforts (“No Labels” comes to mind – great idea, but sorry, people live in a world where everything is labelled so we can make sense of things). “Mushy” and inert. So, when the group With Honor was coming together, my partner Mike Shannon and I said, look, people who run for Congress and win primaries in this country (and therefore have at least a chance of actually going to Congress) are by definition partisan. Parties nominate partisans. Some more so, some less, like it or not. What you want, what America needs, is partisans who are willing to cross the aisle on something (or several somethings) that really matters to them, their constituents, and their country. It’s a small-ball approach, in some ways, but aimed at big, eventual effects. We can start to build capacity for big, cross-partisan accomplishments by starting small. With Honor helped elect roughly 20 members of Congress in its first election cycle and is striving to add more to their ranks this year.
Mike: I am 100% with Tucker here. I have many friends who helped develop the “No Labels” campaign but I could not go there. I am a proud democrat and will carry that “label”. But I did cast my first ever vote for a republican when I voted for our governor here in Maryland, Larry Hogan. Hope I never have to do it again. ;-)
We need strong and meaningful competition between our parties. We also need to make room if third or independent parties emerge that capture the interest of citizens. The main thing is we need candidates and politicians committed to changing the tone of our politics and to develop a new political vernacular that reflects the more aspirational of our on-going experiment in democracy.
