Learning to be civil is one of the critical steps to getting what’s best out of diversity.

Why?

Because as Tami Winfrey Harris correctly states:

“Diversity done correctly is almost always uncomfortable–at least a little. Living or socializing or working around people who are different–racially, ethnically, politically, religiously, etc.–requires compromise, requires empathy, requires withholding judgement, requires being open to learning…The discomfort of diversity yields better people and better communities.”

Last week I attended a course called Crucial Conversations, which is based on the NY Times Best Selling book of the same name. It was a great training and worth the time investment.

As I took some time to go back through the material this week, it really came home to me how their concept of communication styles under stress provides a great way to describe the two sides of incivility.

At the very beginning of the training, we spent some time talking about how we typically respond to crucial conversations. On one hand you have silence, on the other violence. Incivility really works the same way. There are those violent acts of incivility, like the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona. I would also add the loud outbursts of political shouting that we have seen occur at town hall meetings, rallies, and on the radio. These acts are easy to see and often grab the headlines.

But then there is the other side of incivility, the silent side. The withholding of information; the lack of respect for another human being; people acting in bad faith in business, politics, marriage, etc.; promises made with no intent keep them; or promises made without the ability to keep them. These acts of incivility are just as damaging to our society because the undermine the kind of trust that is necessary for a civil society to thrive.

In Crucial Conversations, I believe we’ve found a great new way to further the discussion about “Political Civility” really is and how we might go about reaching such a lofty, but important goal.

Silence or Violence – which one describes you?

Thanks to Richard Bruneau for sharing this great quote*:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

*Edmund Burke, “The Works of Edmund Burke,” Vol. 4, (Waltham, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1866), p. 51-52

Dear Joseph,

It has been fun spending time on these letters. I feel like it’s given me a chance to think about you and helped me to be more observant of your strengths and character.

I’ve realized during this process that you and I share a lot in common. One of those common traits is to get in the “zone.” The zone is that place of ultimate concentration that allows us both to block just about everything out except for the thing we are working on.

This is a great asset when we have to get things done, but it comes with a downside. When we’re in the zone it means we tune out people as well. We tend to not notice how we are behaving or what we are doing that may bother someone else. It seems like the only way to get out of the zone is the loving help of another.

Your mom usually just gives me a gentle tap on the leg as a cue to get back to being more aware of others. I used to be bugged by the tap, but now I’m grateful.

I hope you will come to feel the same as your mom and I do our best to help you balance your capacity to focus on a task with being aware of others.

Love,
Dad

Rule 8: In the presence of others, sing not to yourself with a humming voice, or drum with your fingers or feet.

Rule 9: Sleep not when others speak, sit not when others stand, speak not when you should hold your peace, walk not on when others stop.

As part of my work on this blog, I like to monitor and read the ongoing stream of articles on political civility. The more I read, the more I am reminded of the line in Princess Bride where Inigo remarks to employer, Vizzini (who keeps using the word inconceivable): “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I think people keep using the word civility, but I don’t think it means what they think it means. Current case in point: Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie in his article on the Huffington Post.

Yoffie argues that we need to be less civil and more passionate. He defines civility rather superficially as “courteous and polite behavior.” As we have discussed here on this blog, civility goes much, much deeper.

What’s ironic is that in his own argument for more “passion” and less civility, Yoffie actually makes the case for true civility:

“As we give full-throated expression to the values that we cherish, we should argue for principle and avoid personal attack. As we articulate our beliefs with conviction and intensity, we should treat our opponents with respect and as children of God. And we must never, ever incite others to violence.”

What a wonderful definition of civility. It’s just too bad that Rabbi Yoffie undermines the need of the real kind of civility he wants by cheapening the word’s meaning in his opening paragraph.

One of the purposes of this blog is to keep talking about civility; to keep talking about what it really means, so that when we use the word civility especially in the political realm, it really does mean what we think it means.

Dear Joseph,

The world can be a tricky place and it seems to be getting more complicated all the time.

All around us people, who are really good at making wrong behavior and activities look right and things we don’t need seem absolutely vital. These people will constantly be chasing after your time, attention, and money.

That is why it is so important to remember who you are and where you are trying to go. Joseph, I know that you are a child of a loving God and as I’ve said before, I know you have a special purpose here on earth.

If you’ll keep those two things in mind, I promise that it gets a lot easier to see through the clever advertising or loud noise of those, who want you to give them your time and money for a cheap thrill and momentary “fun.”

On the other hand, time spent strengthening your body, mind and spirit can bring real satisfaction. And as you look back over your life, you’ll see how those little moments spent on better things have made all the difference.

Love,
Dad

Rule 4: Let your recreations be manful not sinful.

I thought Bret Stephens’ article in the WSJ today about Keith Olbermann was interesting. What I found most interesting is that Stephens claims that incivility is not the greatest threat to political discourse rather he says:

“…the real threat is Good Morning America-style niceness, USA Today-style consensus-seeking, all-round squeamishness when it comes to words like “Islam,” the political masquerade of “news analysis” from papers like the New York Times, and so on. In today’s media landscape, audiences are being presented with a choice between voices who are honest (at least about their biases) but not objective, and those who claim to be objective but are rarely honest. Not surprisingly, Americans increasingly prefer the former.”

One problem here. What Stephens has described in the above paragraph is perhaps the height of incivility. There is the obvious incivility – that of the Olbermann and Michael Savage variety. The other kind of incivility is what Stephens laid out in the paragraph above – talk nice to your face while I stab you in the back (a Pharisaical-type behavior routinely denounced by Christ in the New Testemant).

So Mr. Stephens, yes incivility is the greatest threat to political discourse. You said so yourself.

Dear Joseph,

At times I wonder what you will remember most from what your mom and I try to teach you and how that it will probably be different from what your brother and sister remember most.

One of the things that I remember from boyhood was a list of “Swim Family Rules” that my mother put up on the wall. One of those rules said, “Beginners are many; enders are few. Stick to a job, till it sticks to you.” To this day, it is the only rule I can quote by heart. For whatever reason that rule always stuck with me, while none of the others really did.

Perhaps one of the reasons this rule has never left me is because I have a tendency on occasion to get distracted and not follow-through on my commitments. Some of my greatest regrets are commitments or promises I made, but failed to keep. I have always looked up to those, who you could always count on to “get the job done.”

As I continue to watch you grow up, I believe you are beginning to develop that ability to “stick to it.” I have seen this recently with your struggles with reading. I know it hasn’t been easy and at times you have wanted to quit, but you haven’t. You keep working on it everyday.

I have no doubt that as you continue to develop that ability to finish the job, it will be a great asset for the rest of your life. Thank you for being an example of an “ender.”

Love,
Dad

Rule 3: Don’t make promises to do something that you can’t or don’t intend to complete.

Interesting article from Michael Gerson on civility. Two exerpts I especially enjoyed:

We need a robust civility that allows for deep and honest disagreements instead of explaining those differences away. In the long run, this is only achievable if Americans believe that their fellow citizens deserve respect, even when they hold absurd [in our own minds] political beliefs.

and

Without a doubt, doubt is useful and needed at the margins of any ideology. The world is too complex to know completely. Many of our judgments are, by nature, provisional. Those who are immune to evidence, who claim infallibility on debatable matters, are known as bores – or maybe columnists.

Given the disturbing events in Tucson, it is not surprising that the President and others are calling for a more civil political dialogue. I agree with their call, but before we get too far down the road, we should make sure that we are talking about the same “civility.”

I believe much of the civility backlash stems from a lack of understanding of what true civility really is. Civility is not feigned attempts at niceness. Civility does not require that we compromise our position. And true civility does not even ask that we like each other. What genuine civility does require is that we listen; that we remain respectful; and that we act upon the ideal that gave birth to this nation – all men are created equal. This requires the maturity to extend civility though it may not be returned.

However as a conservative, I bothers me to see that too many on the right are choosing the path of least resistance here, namely to scream louder, point fingers at those “hypocrites, and throw broad-brush insults. This may get them noticed in the short run, but over the long haul this type of behavior undermines and marginalizes the very cause for which they seem to be fighting for.

The author of the post “On Civility” is correct in that today we face a monumental task. Our debt is unsustainable; our economy is shaky at best; and our ideological divide has never been greater. But calls to “shove civility up their ass” will do little to improve the situation. Instead we should look to examples of the past where impossible odds were overcome.

There is a reason Washington’s presence at the Convention was critical to its success. Others, like Sam and John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson simply did not have the reputation of civility, which engendered the trust of all sides and could give a constitutional convention the weight it needed for the monumental task at hand. The life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. is another testament to the power of civility. These men were passionate. They did not compromise. But they understood the power of civility and cultivated it.

The question for us remains: do we have the courage to follow in the footsteps of a Washington or a Dr. King? For the sake of future generations, I hope we do.