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?

While much of the Tuscon civility debate has focused on words and pointing fingers for uncivil speech/rhetoric, no one seems to be looking at a more serious way that both Republicans and Democrats may be contributing to the growing lack of civility.

How?

Both parties are contributing to a “gimme” culture. Republicans promise tax cuts, while Democrats promise more entitlements. In the end, the overemphasis by both parties is really doing the same thing: appealing to our selfish side, our desire to have.

Civility requires sacrifice, which is why after events like September 11th you see, at least for a brief time, an ability to work together. For a return to civility to be lasting, our political parties will need to begin focusing on the duties and obligations we share as Americans. Without that calls for civility in our public discourse will fall flat.

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,

I am sure you’ve noticed that your mom and I talk about manners. Right now I get that it may seem like mom and dad making up lots of annoying rules.

I remember my dad always reminding me to stop sitting on my legs. He’d always ask if I was trying to lay eggs. He even once got an egg out of the fridge. It drove me nuts. I didn’t think sitting on my leg was that big a deal.

What I’ve finally come to learn is that we work on good manners because we care about others. It’s not that we’re trying to be perfect, and I don’t expect you to be. What I hope you learn (and what my dad wanted me to learn) is that our good manners send a message to others that we care about them and that they deserve our best.

When we take that extra effort in public setting to watch we tell those we are with that we value them as human beings. I don’t know if there is anything better we can give another person than that message.

Love,
Dad

Rule 5: At a party, a game, or in public generally, how we act should show some respect for those around us.

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.

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.

By John F. Pilmer

Applause was generous before, and deafening after, Ted Cruz spoke to the Heritage Foundation Resource Bank 2010 audience in Miami.  No doubt was left as to which side of the aisle the former Solicitor General of Texas comes down on.  He spoke encouraging words to tea partiers, republicans, and other conservatives about the future of the movement–in spite of recent liberal victories such as nationally controlled healthcare.

Among my favorite parts of his speech was his description of “What We Need From a Conservative  Candidate” in order to win back the White House and Congress.

1) He/She must stand for principles – Cruz gave examples of victories in Texas defending the 10 Commandments monument at the state capitol, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the 2nd Ammendment (to keep & bare arms).

2) The right candidate stands for sound principles; has backbone for the fight; and motivate, inspire and connect with the people.

3) The right candidate must understand the opposition. He pointed to the current president as a “committed ideologue” in a long line of smooth talkers like FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. (Obama’s Actual Platform Ted Cruz 4 23 10 audio)

4) The right candidate must be prepared to demand change and settle for nothing less.

My take is that many in the audience will be doing more research on Ted Cruz. We will see him again.

www.juntocommunications.com

By John F. Pilmer

This week’s Republican caucuses drew much larger than normal crowds following this week’s unprecedented attempted takeover of health care by the Washington’s liberal left.  Here’s one peak into the experience in Utah and the unanimous precinct rejection of the mystery health care bill just passed by the House and signed by the president.
Daily Herald: 15,000 Pack into county caucus locations

Conservative Survivor – Raucous Caucus