A Crisis in Civility?
Political Discourse and Its Discontents. Edited by R. G.
Boatright, T.J. Shaffer, S. Sobieraj and D. G. Young. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, 2019. 238 pp. $39.96 (paperback).
To cite this book:
The
book Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents, attempts
to break down and define the issue of civility in a day when America is
seemingly, more divided than ever before. Bringing civil discourse back to the
national conversation is viewed through the lens of scholars in various fields
of academia like sociology, economics, psychology, communications, and
political science. America’s major political parties are comprised of two
opposing ideologies that are in direct contradiction with one another and
fighting for dominance. The question arises whether the two can resolve their
differences in a civil manner. Crisis in Civility lays the groundwork
for differentiating between civil and uncivil discourse while also
distinguishing the differences between the way the public views civility
opposed to how scholars and politicians may define it. It also does an in-depth
evaluation of how the public’s definition of civil or uncivil rhetoric can
change based on social group perceptions and whether they are considered an in
or out group. Unfortunately, the books positive attributes end here. There is
an obvious bias and a failure to define not only the word civility itself, but
the worldview and political opinions of one political party in an agreeable
manner. The whole book is written from the perspective that the presidential
election of 2016 represents one of the most uncivil times in American history,
and that is all due to who the hard political left routinely referred to as
“the deplorables.” One chapter even goes so far as identifying the political
right as white supremacists, a narrative commonly pushed in the mainstream
media. Crisis in Civility: Political
Discourse and its Discontents fails to define our nation for what it is, a
constitutional republic and continually refers to it as a democracy, without
defining the differences. There is indeed a legitimate question whether a civil
conversation can take place between two opposing worldviews when one side is
not accurately represented, and the terms of civil discourse are defined by one
side only.
Chapter
one starts by breaking down civility into two separate concepts, civility of
politeness and civility of responsiveness (Laden pp. 10)
Each can be characterized by the theoretical outlook one may have and how
it affects their views on civil discourse (Laden pp. 10). Civility as
politeness suggests that the language we use and the way we present our self,
our mannerisms if you will, may bear as much weight on the discourse as the
logic behind the argument. For example, Laden (2019) uses the example of
Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar over his “Obamacare”
claims on the floor of the House of Representatives. He suggests that this was
rude, uncivil behavior even though the person being called a liar may be lying.
He is suggesting that yelling the truth
at someone telling a lie is just as uncivil as lying itself. In this writer’s
opinion the bias of the author is showing by using this as an example because there
is no explanation of why Representative Wilson called President Obama a liar.
This is an issue that strikes right at the heart of what divides America so
deeply. The battle between socialized medicine and free markets. Two ideologies
diametrically opposed to one another.
The
next concept is referred to as civility as responsiveness (Laden, pp. 13). This
is best explained by describing civility as a virtue of life in a
cooperative society which involves the willingness to consider others ideas
and, when one should adjust their own positions in consideration of others
(Kingwell
1995; Gutmann and Thompson 1998). These are excellent virtues to possess in
civil dialogue. Laden (2019) describes them by saying that civility as
responsiveness involves the striving to understand others positions even if
they are alien to our own and seem rude in tone. Again, political discourse in
America is not being done by two political parties that hold the same ideals
but have different views on how to implement them. The worldviews are vastly
different. For example, the Democrat left has as much interest in listening to
why the ban on AR-15’s had no effect on crime as Republicans do on wealth
redistribution. These two beliefs are made up two completely different views
which each side holds onto vehemently. Neither one is willing, nor likely to
compromise.
Civility
as responsiveness has less to do with politeness than the nature of the
argument itself (Laden, pp. 14). People can exercise civility as politeness
without giving any consideration to the thoughts or positions of others and
still be considered as behaving uncivilly. Civility of responsiveness is
described as an action that sets aside a personal bias in favor of a
deliberative process (Laden, pp. 24). The author claims that the civilly
responsive citizen sacrifices his own political advantages in the name of
compromise. This suggests that neither side has a position worth fighting for.
Is it civil to sacrifice principles of truth to appear polite? Finally, the
author’s biased view of American life shows on page 26 when he describes our
society as being unjust by claiming we alienate large segments of the
population and, by using the typical wealth inequality argument so often used
by political elites. Political elites no less that are worth billions.
The
view held by the right is never described in this book. The wealth inequality
argument suggests that it is the governments job to distribute wealth equally
and that it is not something created through individual effort. Individuals are
the owners of their labor. Secondly, the argument that there are large segments
of the population that are alienated revolves around the same argument the
political left always makes. That America is racist. Attempting to define terms
of civil discourse without defining the beliefs the opposing sides are arguing
for is from the beginning, a dead end.
Chapter
two begins to dive into the public’s perception of civility. The author of this
chapter tends to show less bias, (though one could argue she is displaying bias
from the other side in some instances) and presents her argument strictly based
on the data that exists. While she refers to the 2016 presidential election as
tumultuous, she acknowledges that the public saw uncivil behavior from both
democrats, and republicans. The main point of the chapter revolves around the
issue of personal vs public incivility. Personal incivility is considered
behavior that may go against what one perceives as normal polite behavior (Muddiman,
pp. 32). It entails, name calling, interrupting, and displaying one’s emotions while
engaged in an argument (Muddiman, pp. 32). Public
level incivility on the other hand is considered anything that violates the
normal political or deliberative processes (Muddiman, pp. 32). Just as chapter
one describes civility as politeness as responsiveness as being more concerned with
the heart of the issue and less with politeness, public incivility revolves
around the idea of political opponents refusing to consider each other’s
positions and breaking formal political procedures (Muddiman, pp. 33). The
general public, according to Muddiman (2019), generally views incivility as
anything from failure to compromise on meaningful legislation, to what they
referred to as playing the race or gender card, and even political parties
making threats against the constitution.
Chapter
two also discusses the idea that people will generally view civil or uncivil
behavior based on their own biases and political leanings (Muddiman, pp. 37).
Political parties, according to social identity theory (Muddiman, pp. 37) are
viewed by the public as in or out groups. The party they identify with is
typically considered the in group. When members of their political party break
with political norms, or behave in a manner consistent with their perceptions
of civil or uncivil behavior, they are likely to side with their personal bias
on the issue and make excuses for the behavior. This again, hints at the idea
that any real civility will forever be out of reach because the two opposing
parties are both basing their positions on deeply rooted principles which
define their worldview. Muddiman (2019) goes on to ask what the differences are
between the public perception of incivility and those conducting research in
the field as people tend to expand their definitions of what constitutes civil
or uncivil behavior beyond the standard academic definitions. Muddiman (2019)
concludes by suggesting that incivility largely lies in the eye of the beholder
while acknowledging that simply going off what a largely divided public views
as civil behavior may not answer the question.
Chapter
three addresses the definitional aspects of civility and whether the scholarly
descriptions are on par with how the public views it (Kenski,
et al, pp. 45). The findings are on par with chapter two in the sense that citizens
perceptions of civility differ widely from that of scholars. Most notably in
the areas of what they consider to be civil dialogue. Perceptions of incivility
among the public are rude and insensitive behavior towards others (Kenski, et
al, pp. 50). The chapter goes in depth describing the varying degrees the
public views incivility in speech, rating it based on several variables. While
they are trying to determine what types of speech the public determines to be
the most uncivil, it almost seems unnecessary to break it down to such extents.
For example, there is slight variations between the different types of speech.
Kenski, et al, (2019) note that there is only a one-point deviation between the
way the public views name calling, for example and lying about political
intentions (52). Most interesting, is
the finding that the public does not share the same view that accusations of
lying are not viewed as detrimentally as the scholarly definitions may suggest
(Kenski, et al, pp. 52). From this
writer’s perspective this part of the chapter is unnecessary as the previous
chapter already set out to define the differences between scholarly and public
perceptions.
The
next part of the chapter attempts to define the differences in gender
perception. Kenski, et al, (2019) take note that women are far less likely to
exhibit real political knowledge than men, while also taking less interest and being
less involved (53) than men are. Interestingly however, they tend to show up in
larger numbers to vote. Women also, are more likely to base their opinions on
incivility based on the different types of speech than men are (54). While this
may seem like important information this chapter muddies the waters if you will
by diving too deep into what types of comments men and women may view as civil
or uncivil. Kenski, et al, (2019) notes
that the differences can be razor thin between the ways men and women view
certain comments. It is difficult to determine, unless one is trying to
specifically formulate a way to appeal to one demographic, why such
insignificant differences matter. The chapter concludes by saying the same
thing as Muddiman in chapter two. The definition of incivility largely lies in
the public perception (Kenski, et al, pp. 55) and there is some discrepancy in
the ways different people view speech. Among the public, however, is the shared
perception that name calling, and vulgar comments are considered uncivil
(Kenski, et al, pp. 55). The author notes that the findings in this chapter may
prove useful in considering the consequences of certain types of speech.
Thus
far, the main idea behind the book has been describing how the public views civility
in politics and the different concepts that describe civility. Chapter four
discusses the importance of tone in the speaker’s voice. The author, Emily Sydnor
also seems to be displaying her personal bias as the chapter immediately refers
to President Trump’s uncivil behavior while a few paragraphs later, refers to
President Bush in the same manner. While she does mention President Reagan in a
positive light, there is nothing referring to any uncivil behavior by democrats
in a manner that directly implicates them. Sydnor highlights essentially the
same thing that was noted in chapter 3 concerning what people saw as uncivil
behavior. Messages that directly address certain individuals while staying on
topic, no matter if they disagree are not necessarily considered uncivil until
inflammatory language is used (Sydnor, pp. 62). This is not any different than
saying that people view name calling and vulgar language as being uncivil. The
same point is made on page 62 when Sydnor describes the various action people
consider to be uncivil while attempting to break it down by demographic as which
group of people view what behavior more uncivilly. Sydnor points out that
incivility may be defined by the message or ideas presented by certain
speakers. For example, she cites the Allegheny Survey of 2016 (63) that shows
attacks against a person’s patriotism, race or sexual orientation constitute
the highest levels of incivility. Sydnor’s bias shows again by using President
Trump’s statements on illegal immigration as an example of uncivil dialogue (63)
and highlighting Hillary Clinton remarking on it by saying he used “deeply
offensive rhetoric” (64). Sydnor failed to acknowledge the fact that Hillary
Clinton routinely referred to Trump and his supporters as “deplorables” without
making any attempt to understand what our views are. From this perspective, the
rules of civility of responsiveness are being broken by the people that the
authors of this book seem to support. The point is that sometimes views on civility
are often based on who is delivering a message along with the tone. President
Trump said that illegal immigrants are bringing in drugs. This is true, but it
is viewed as uncivil because of the tone. Finally, Sydnor introduces another
concept that the rest of this review will be based on. On page 63 she cites
studies by Chaff and Zerilli suggesting that sometimes incivility is called for
when addressing injustices. This is an idea that presents itself again in
chapter 9. The rest of this review will start with this idea and cover other
important points aside from the public perception of civility.
Chapter
9 starts by highlighting a poll suggesting that seventy-eight percent of the
surveyed electorate viewed the Republican primary of 2016 as rude, while only forty-one
percent saw the Democrat primary that way (Gastil, pp. 161). This does more to
show the bias of the author in this writer’s opinion because there is no
mention of the fact that President Trump won the election and for what reasons.
From the perspective of the Republican party, the eight years of President
Obama discrediting American ideals, suggesting that everyone that disagreed
with him or his policies was racist and the lies he told about Obamacare, along
with the damage many people felt it caused to our health care system is the
reason Trump was elected in the first place. The perspective of Republicans is
never considered in this book. In fact, chapter 9 is written from the
perspective that the mainstream narrative the media generally pushes, depicting
America as a racist country rooted in white supremacism. Gastil, speaking in
first person (169) describes the partisan struggle in the United States by
referring to President Trump as a president who threatens democracy, incites violence,
and encourages white supremacists. This is inflammatory opinion and does little
to advance any real dialogue. Furthermore, America is not a democracy.
Democracy is where majority rules hands down. We have democratic processes, but we are a Democratic Republic. The book
fails to differentiate. This writer could point to several examples where ⁷President Obama’s rhetoric was thought to incite hatred against the police over
situations that were inaccurately, and to the opinion of many on the right,
purposefully misrepresented by the media. What this writer finds most
disturbing about Gastil’s writing is found on page 170 where he says that
winning every election from this day forward may require the use of uncivil
actions such as shutting out and shutting down political opponents. He says, “Civility
can wait for a better day, when democracy’s institutions have been secured and
normal political life can resume” (Gastil, pp. 170). This writer was left with
the impression that Mr. Gastil was a reader and follower of Saul Alinsky’s
Rules for Radicals (25) where in chapter two Alinsky refers to the morality of
means and ends, or the common belief in politics that the ends justify the
means. Saul Alinsky is very relevant here because Hillary Clinton, who is
mentioned several times in a light suggesting she brings virtue or a more moral
tone to Trump’s disrespectful rhetoric wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky
entitled “There is Only the Fight.” The general misconceived notion is that
America is a land of oppression, not freedom. That is a matter of opinion, not
fact.
At
this point the question must be asked because it has thus far been left
unaddressed. What constitutes normalcy in American life? This is a concept that
would garner vastly different responses, not only from the political left and
right, but from the American people as well. The same is true with terms like
white supremacism and racism for that matter. Furthermore, Mr. Gastil’s
comments reinforces a concept of civility found earlier in the book. One that
this writer saved for this point in the review. Laden, who in chapter one
described the two concepts of civility suggested that uncivil arguments were
more centered around winning an argument where being civil was concerned with
reaching agreements (Laden, pp. 19-20). Is Mr. Gastil admitting that the nature
of the political left is more concerned with winning than reaching any civil
consensus? That is what his rhetoric on page 170 suggests.
This book is full of examples that suggest this idea, while also failing to define
certain terms and ideologies accurately. For instance, on page 132 of chapter
seven, the authors, J. Cherie Strachan and Michael R. Wolfe, refer to
republicans as authoritarians who stand opposed to political correctness.
Political correctness is viewed by many republicans as a tool to suppress free
speech. Therefore, the people insisting on adhering to the terms of political
correctness would be the authoritarians. This is another example demonstrating
the vast differences between the two political parties and the unlikelihood of
real political civility. Furthermore, on page 113 they suggest that “uncivil or
rude interactions, on the other hand, are characterized by ad hominem attacks,
name-calling, overt challenges, and interruptions. These are rhetorical moves
that, often purposefully, diminish the likelihood of future collaboration” (Strachan
& Wolfe, pp. 113). Is not referring to the Republican party as
authoritarian without trying to understand their viewpoint an example of an ad
hominem attack? Finally, in chapter seven we see another example of failing to define
specific terms. Strachan & Wolfe (121) bring up the issue of American
Muslims and their attempts to build a Mosque at ground zero, the site of the
September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Many people responded to this with offense
because it was suggested that opposition to such an action was based on deeply
rooted racism and suspicion of the Muslim community. The truth is, that day
was one of the most horrific in most Americans’ memory. The idea that a mosque
would be built there was offensive for that reason. The Muslim community, who
has been more than welcome in America, demonstrated an inability to show
sensitivity to our concerns. There are Mosques all over America and in most
cases, American’s do not object to them. Stracham and Wolfe, on page 114
suggest the following ̶
Advocates
of deliberation point out that when people continue to engage with one another
despite their differences, they not only learn to how to listen but also may
use new insights to develop shared solutions, sometimes referred to as the
“third way” or “win-win” solutions, that could not be uncovered without
deliberation. They also learn to set aside issues that will damage their
ability to cooperate on less controversial items—which allows them to identify
“shared pain” or “shared sacrifice” solutions and to avoid gridlock.
Are
they subtly suggesting that only one side needs to show this level of tolerance
towards another person or parties’ position? Why would the Muslim community not
be expected to show sympathy and understanding to our positions concerning the
9-11 mosque?
Finally,
chapter 11 offers an interesting insight to the book itself and possibly the
reason the studies on civility are occurring in the first place. To the credit
of the author, Timothy J. Schaffer, he acknowledges there is a struggle in
ideologies between the concepts of individualism, and communitarianism (188) to
a certain degree. The focus of the chapter, however, has left this writer
wondering what his true position is, along with the aims of the research
presented in the book. The chapter revolves around the civil discussions that
took place in the 1930’s and 40’s, particularly concerning the passage of
Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. Schaffer (2019) acknowledges that the New
Deal was not necessarily viewed by all as a good thing. Too many, it represents
America’s turn towards socialism as the government took over large areas of
land and agricultural development. The focus of the chapter revolves around the
development of discussion methods that were designed, as Schaffer (2019)
suggests, to get the community involved. Given the idea that our country was
founded as a constitutional republic where the government was not supposed to
own land, but it was for the people to own, the true nature of these
discussions should be considered. Especially realizing that much of what the
federal government was after they were able to obtain through these
discussions. This caught this writer’s interest because there is something
called the Delphi technique which is a form of facilitating public discussions while
ensuring that they go the way the facilitators desire. People are allowed their
input, but techniques are employed to persuade people to the other side, or at
the very least, give the impression their input matters. For example, in
article entitled The Delphi method: A description, review, and criticism,
the author writes that when using the Delphi technique dominant speakers can
not only control the discussion, but the outcomes (Fisher, 1978).
To
conclude, Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents provides
great research and insight into the issues of civil discourse. The public’s
perception of what constitutes civility, opposed to the political elite or scholar’s
definition is examined thoroughly. It has been revealed, for example, that the
public holds a certain bias towards their own political ideology and are more
likely to view their own sides behavior as civil despite displaying the same
kind of behavior as their opposition. The message that civility largely
lies in the eyes of public perception rings true through several chapters of
the book almost dominating as a major theme in the first half. Unfortunately,
the book also is written, for the most part, with a severe left wing bias
pushing the narrative that many of America’s ideals stem from racism, wealth
inequality, sexism and any other “ism” that can be thrown into the mix. The
election of Donald Trump, in the opinion of many of the authors, represents
Americas most uncivil time, which is debatable. It certainly was uncivil, however,
to claim that all the incivility came from the right alone is itself, uncivil
and dishonest. The authors in the book fail to live up to some of the very
descriptions they offer as being examples of what entails civil discourse while
also, failing in many cases, to describe the true nature of what Republicans
describe as their political beliefs. Many chapters are simply written from the
perspective that civil discourse is needed because the nation is in an epic
battle against white supremacism. This is also a term that is defined in a
vastly different way between the left and the right. In all honesty, after finishing this
book, this writer was left the impression that the authors were more concerned
with defining the terms of political discussions for their own purposes than
they were with actually engaging in civil debate with the opposition.
The
ideological debate between the Republicans and Democrats revolve around the
issue of whether men can be free or whether they need to be managed and tended
to. Democrats argue for a welfare state while Republicans are supposed to stand
for individual liberty. One of these ideologies represents an absolute, in this
writer’s opinion. Men are created free, by God, according to the founders of
our nation. John Adams argued that our constitution was for a moral and
religious people and unsuited for any other (John Adams Center). The belief was
based on the notion that men could be free because we adhered to the absolute
moral truth that came from believing in the Christian God. John Locke, for
example argued that men should take heed to follow God’s law first because
natural religion was not easily misunderstood (Bizzell & Herzberg, 824). This was the foundation of American life
and it is supposed to be the ideals that represent the Republican party, not
racism or white supremacism. It is not the republican party that insists
minorities need the welfare state to make an equal playing ground. The
democrat’s beliefs are more centered around moral relativism, or humanist
philosophy. Their governing philosophy is more in line with Peter Ramus’
beliefs that men did not need religion (Bizzell & Herzberg, 678) to argue
from a moral standpoint. He believed men could define their own morality and
reason on their own, without a God (Bizzell & Herzberg, 675). That makes up
the general view of the Democrat party. After all, they removed God from their
campaign platform in 2012. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its
Discontents is anything but a plan to develop civil rhetoric designed to find
truth and an agreeable consensus. It is more akin to how John Locke would
define man’s logic ̶ “books and other forms of logic that are liable to the
common and natural obscurities and difficulties incident to words” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 824). In some places,
despite its best efforts, the book is confusing in its attempts to define every
possible perspective on every type of civil discourse. Much of the book
revolves around determining the differences between the way the public,
politicians and scholars view civil or uncivil behavior without addressing the
real issues which create the division causing the incivility. It is just
written from a perspective that America is bad, and its problems are due to
republicans, essentially. Perhaps, the authors would do better to pursue an
accurate description of how Republicans view race relations, political processes,
and other social issues, as the book claims that is what makes up civil
behavior. The American constitution is the one remaining document in the world
where individual dignity and identity supersedes government power. In this
writer’s opinion, it is still worth fighting for.
Alinsky, S. (1972) Rules
for Radicals. New York. Vintage Books.
Gutmann,
Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1998. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kingwell,
Mark. 1995. A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Locke, J. (1689) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to The Present 2nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Ramus,
P. (1549) Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian. From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. (2001) The
Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2nd
Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
