Twisted Logic and a Warped Sense of Reality: Relying on Man's Reasoning

America is a mess and it is not going to get better any time soon. Years of public-school indoctrination controlled by cultural Marxists has created generations of young people who have no idea how to discover truth. A constant bombardment of propaganda discrediting American history, and the principles of liberty and natural law, have left America’s youth lost and seething in twisted reasoning. American society has come to be viewed from the lens of critical theory, which teaches people to criticize culture for the purpose of affecting change. The biggest problem is, they have been lied to about the nature of American culture and what it means to be free; therefore, they have no real understanding of what they are changing or, what they are changing it to. The rioting, protesting and discontent is all based on a lie that America is a racist country and that white people have an institutional privilege which keeps minorities systematically oppressed. This is twisted and convoluted reasoning when you consider the origins of racism. America was founded on Christian principles but has taken a sharp left turn away from God and has lost her way. Science, and the reliance on man’s own reasoning and pursuit of knowledge has left us spiraling out of control with a distorted view of reality.

We have reached a point in America where the traditional view of Christianity, and an absolute morality has come to be viewed as oppressive and intolerant. The cultural left has been positioning their beliefs as morally superior as they use words like accepting and tolerant to describe their views. They justify the shouting down and humiliating of their political opponents based on the misguided notion that their worldview is morally superior, and that Christians somehow pose a threat to humanity (Crisis in Civility, p. 170). We see this playing out every day as leftist protestors gather in defiance of civil society, shouting down and attempting to silence their political opponents. The Russian collusion hoax, the Kavanaugh sexual allegation circus and now the riots are all justified actions against their political opponents in the minds of the left because they are acting on the premise that Christian morality, or the idea of an absolute morality is oppressive and in the words of Hillary Clinton, deplorable.

The debate comes down to the idea of an absolute morality vs. moral relativism. Those subscribing to the moral relativist view generally believe that life is without absolute meaning, and concepts of right and wrong vary from person to person or by culture. There is no superior world worldview, and all cultures and beliefs are morally equivalent. This idea could arguably be said to originate from relying on man’s own reasoning. It is absurd ̶ and a belief that the left, while propagating it, obviously does not adhere to. They are pushing the idea that moral relativism ̶ because it is allegedly morally neutral, is superior.

Rhetorician Francis Bacon said that a reliance on man’s own philosophical classification systems would inevitably lead to twisted reasoning and distorted views of reality. Believing that there is no truth is certainly twisted reasoning. Making the argument that truth is non-existent leaves one running in circles because at some point, the statement ̶ “there is no truth,” would have to be accepted as reality; therefore, it would have to be true. The assumption that there is no absolute moral standard to which we should hold ourselves to also falls short because the reliance on man’s reasoning and morally relativist positions have led to the mass slaughter of millions. Communist nations, founded on atheistic and Darwinist doctrines reasoned that men were no more significant than a chimpanzee; therefore, the logic that followed justified the elimination of those that did not conform to the idea that men should place the state as their highest authority and not God. While this is an atrocious reality of communism, the act itself is based on a misguided, twisted notion that the morality of no morality is somehow superior as the mass murder was justified because men were not living up to the moral standard of what they considered superior virtue.

Humanist philosophy also teaches that men can reason on their own and do not need the crutch of religion to make morally sound decisions. Fredrick Edwords argued that “the moral and political implications of humanist thought are “subject to the continual revision in light of both the fallible and tentative nature of our knowledge and constant shifts in social conditions.” What he is arguing, in a sense is the idea of virtue ethics. That morality constantly shifts from situation to situation.

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).

This explains the attitude of the political left perfectly. The approach they take attempting to discredit the American, or Christian worldviews is morally justified because the beliefs we adhere to are intolerable. Edwords says that the basis of humanist thought is “subject to continual revision in light of both the fallible and tentative nature of our knowledge and constant shifts in social conditions.” That essentially means that whatever direction society goes in, their ethics shift and morals change to justify their positions whereas the Christian worldview remains firmly rooted in the word of God. They admit that their knowledge is fallible, yet they refuse to consider why that is so.

The left can attach labels like racism to almost any situation because they have no absolute standard which defines their principles. They can define and re-define words as they see fit to push their agenda because they are not rooted in a truth that is absolute, but one that is relative to whatever they need it to be. People often wonder why the left cannot be held accountable for anything they say or do. They cannot be portrayed as hypocritical because they have no principle. Take Joe Biden for instance. He recently said that black people were not black if they voted for Trump and not him. This statement, in the eyes of the right, showed the real racism that exists in the Democrat party. It reflects the efforts to keep black Americans in a state of victimhood and dependent on the Democrat party. The mentality can be traced back to Lyndon Johnson when he said “I’ll have those n**gers voting democrat for the next two hundred years.” That is the real state of racism in America. The belief that certain demographics are not as capable and are kept on welfare rolls in exchange for votes. Through twisted reasoning and godless rhetoric, the Democrat party has convinced America that the opposite is true. Believing black Americans do not need welfare programs like affirmative action is now considered racism. 

Today, American’s watch in astonishment as groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa burn down, and in some cases, take over cities under the justification that they are fighting oppression. Twisted logic based on the belief that man can reason without the crutch of religious morality has led to a warped worldview where man defines what is right or wrong. Years of propaganda has created an irreversible conviction in the minds of our youth that America represents racism, fascism, and greed. They believe that they are fighting to free America from the exploitations of capitalist America when in fact, the only people being exploited are the ones doing the deeds of the Democrat party. The only people who think Black Lives do not matter are those encouraging them to riot.  

Book Review: A Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. A Study in Left Wing Bias

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:

Boatright, R. (Ed.), Shaffer, T. (Ed.), Sobieraj, S. (Ed.), Goldthwaite Young, D. (Ed.). (2019). A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

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.

Fischer, R. (1978). The Delphi method: A description, review, and criticism. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 4(2), 64-70. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-academiclibrarianship/

Gastil, J. (2019) Seeking a Mutuality of Tolerance. From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1998. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kenski, K., Coe, K. & Rains, A. S. (2019) Perceptions of Civility in Public Discourse. From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 

Kingwell, Mark. 1995. A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Laden, S, A. (2019) Two Concepts of Civility. From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Locke, J. (1689) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2^nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Muddiman, A. (2019) How People Perceive Political Incivility. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Ramus, P. (1549) Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian. From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. (2001) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2^nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Sydnor, E. (2019) Signaling Incivility. From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Strachan, C & Wolfe, R. M. (2019) Can Civility and Deliberation Disrupt the Deep Roots of Polarization? From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Schaffer, J, T. (2019) Enabling Civil Discourse. From  A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

Police Shootings and the Theory of Evolution

On Saturday, June thirteenth, in Atlanta Georgia, there was yet another instance of an African American man being shot by a white police officer. This resulted in rioters blocking interstates and burning down the Wendy’s where the incident occurred. The mayor demanded the resignation of the police chief and the officer involved was fired. What happened? While attempting to place the suspect under arrest, he fought back, stole, and attempted to shoot the officer with his taser. The officer, at this point, fired a shot in self-defense killing the suspect. The media attempts to portray these situations as being the result of an institutionally racist policing system. Even though FBI statistics show more white people being shot by police, they drive the narrative home that African Americans are more likely to be targeted by racist police simply because they are black. There are numerous studies which argue both sides of this issue. Those that show this to be the case and those that refute the claim; however, there are some interesting points to consider. If the police are racist, where does the racism originate? Is it part of the officer’s personality and personal bias or, is it something else?

For decades, our public schools have been teaching the theory of evolution as the story of man’s origins while moving further away from religion. This is significant because Darwin’s theory played an important role in the development of Marx’s system of communism. In fact, according to the article “The Darwinian Foundations of Communism," Stalin, Lenin and Marx all subscribed to the story of Genesis as man’s origins until exposed to Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Marx adopted Darwin’s theory as the perfect explanation as to why men needed to be ruled by the state because they were soulless animals who could not make rational decisions for themselves. Why is this important? Democrats are largely advocating for a communist system which at the very least, denies the existence of God. The book “Marx and Satan," goes further and suggests that Marx, once deeply religious, became angry at God and developed his communist system as a means of breaking man’s connection to him. Whether this is the case or not, the moral implication of Darwinism has been the dehumanization of mankind by making his moral significance no greater than any other animal.  

What does this have to do with police shooting African Americans? An article entitled “Pulling the Trigger: Dehumanization of African Americans and Police Violence,” by Themal I. Ellawala makes the assumption that black Americans are targeted simply because they have been dehumanized in American culture. The author cites research in the article suggesting that an association between African Americans as being “ape-like” and less than human is automatically made, and this unconscious association justifies the shooting of black males. Considering that Darwin believed evolution had occurred and that there were more highly evolved species of humans in his view, this could offer some reasonable explanation. Considering of course, that evolution has dominated our public schools and not Genesis, as the story of man’s origins.

“a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that in-between links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as ‘underdeveloped’.”

Another interesting point to consider from Ellawala’s article is that police shootings occur in poor neighborhoods. The implication he is making is that people of lower socioeconomic status are also viewed from the “less than human” perspective. Research is cited suggesting that brain activity differs in social interactions when dealing with people of lower social classes. Again, the state of many minority neighborhoods can be tied directly to Democrat policies. Most inner cities are governed by the Democrat left who tend to push for a communist government. It could be argued that this stems from Lyndon Johnsons great society program which made many single African American families fatherless and dependent on government welfare.

The belief that African’s are inferior to white people can be linked directly to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Francis Galton was a psychologist who was related to Darwin, and an advocate of his theories. He believed that African people had no independent will of their own and preferred a life of servitude. This seems to be a prevailing attitude among the Democrats today as they argue that black people need the liberal welfare state to compete in America’s capitalist society. Galton also argued against the idea that men were created equal and suggested that inferior stocks of humans should not be allowed to breed. He is also the one responsible for coining the term eugenics which of course, led to the development of the industry that has ravished the African American community since 1973, abortion.

Truthfully, the theory of evolution has had moral implications for all of mankind. Even white people. The victims of Communist and Nazi genocides in Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia were the result of this dehumanizing worldview which posited the idea that men had no moral significance and were soulless beings that needed to be herded and controlled. The idea that man is an animal has led the study of human behavior to view mankind strictly through a scientific lens that denies the existence of individuality and a human soul. Men’s behavior is thought to be largely motivated not by free choice but animalistic stimulus response mechanisms. Perhaps the real answer we are seeking is ridding the public-school system of Darwinian education and returning to one based on Christian ethics and the idea that all men were created by God and have free will. Between the Christian and Communist worldviews there is only one that teaches man is an animal and it is not Christianity. Given the research in Ellawala’s article and the reality of Darwinism, it is reasonable to conclude that the high rate of African American’s being killed by police is the result of an evolution-based education. This could be said of all police shootings as all people, not just African American’s, are thought to be nothing more than animals according to the theory of evolution.  

Political Rhetoric, Civil Discourse and the Morality of Means and Ends

Rhetoric, as described by Locke, Campbell and other classical thinkers is something used to help men find truth and develop virtue. It is the way men use language to not only better themselves, but to better understand the world around them and the natural truths it contains. Locke, for example, argued that men should take care to acknowledge God’s truth first, opposed to other forms of knowledge put forth by men because natural religion, or God’s word, is not easily misunderstood. Campbell, basing much of his work off Locke, argued there was two types of reasoning, moral and scientific. Moral reasoning took precedence because it was based on human experience and testimony, tying the ideas of moral virtue directly to the absolute truth of God. Furthermore, Campbell also believed that the way we use our language and convey our thoughts has as much weight, or more, as the logic behind them. In other words, you could be making a factual argument but the way you are presenting it is preventing people from listening. This is called the eloquence of persuasion and relates to the issue of civility in our current, national conversation.

America is certainly at a point where two worldviews diametrically opposed to one another, are fighting for dominance. On one side is the belief that man was endowed by our creator with certain, unalienable rights which cannot be deprived of us. Proponents of this view believe people can self-govern, and that government itself, being a necessary evil, has a limited role in human affairs. On the other ̶ the belief that government should have a more prominent role in people’s lives while also, gaining power through central control of the economy. People making this argument tend to believe government should have the responsibility of ensuring resources are distributed equally. In simpler terms it is an ideological battle over the liberal nanny state and free market capitalism. These conflicting worldviews cannot realistically coexist in a world where truth exists as an absolute. The former view is based on the Christian worldview positing the idea that God created men with freewill; thus, representing an absolute reality. The latter, that government should essentially be the central power in people’s lives. The question then arises as to whether a real sense of civility can be brought back to the national debate with two views which contrast so strongly.

What is civility? Who defines its terms? Unfortunately, this is something that the opposing sides of left and right cannot even agree upon. If the terms of civil debate are not mutually agreeable, how could any consensus over such controversial issues that we face today possibly be reached? For example, Dr. John Livingston writes that civility requires first, that one respect themselves to respect and engage in civil conversations with others. This coincides with both John Locke’s and Hugh Blairs assertion that rhetoric should aim to produce men of virtue that seek the betterment of their own understandings. Dr. Livingston is arguing that there are certain virtues a man must possess to engage in civil dialogue. These are faith, hope charity, courage, providence, justice, and temperance. These virtues are largely associated with the Christian religion and reflect the inner morals of faithful men.

In the book Crisis in Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents, Anthony Simon Laden, in chapter one, suggests that civility in politics revolves around winning arguments or turning people from their previously held positions to leaning more towards yours. He hints at the uncivil nature of such strategies by pointing out the fact that politicians often turn to smear campaigns designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents. Civil discourse, he suggests, revolves around coming to agreements. He also refers to a concept known as civility of politeness which suggests, in the course of day to day life, people in a society such as ours owe it to each other to live and let live and at the very least, conduct ourselves in a polite manner towards one another. Furthermore, Laden also points out that the consequences of political discourse that take on an uncivil tone tend to create tension in society while appealing to what he refers to as man’s violent tendencies. This is ironic because the book itself seems to be defining the terms of civility by suggesting on page 24, that being civil sometimes requires the “sacrifice of political advantage in the name of fairness.” The author of chapter one also shows his political bias by suggesting that Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton and George Bush were the ones calling for national civility amongst what he referred to as the nation’s most uncivil time, the 2016 presidential election. As if Republicans were the ones calling everyone racist.

Today’s political discourse revolves around whether man can be free and govern himself, as our founding documents set forth, or, the idea that we need government to manage our affairs. Considering the concepts put forth by Laden, is it possible that the two opposing sides can come to any agreements? Would we even want them too? Our nation is founded on the ideals of self-governance, individual responsibility and unalienable rights which are naturally inherent to being human. Of the two opposing parties fighting for political dominance one side allegedly believes in these principles while the other clearly does not. The hard-political left clearly displays their uncivil nature by viciously attacking anything that stands in their way. They actively seek to rip the fundamental principles of our founding apart while replacing them with Marxist philosophies which go against the very word of God and natures self-evident truth. How can you be civil with people who seek to destroy everything you believe in?

Of the two opposing factions fighting for our loyalty and votes, one side all too often displays a willingness to compromise and seek terms of agreements while the other shows them no respect for doing so. This comes down to the nature of the philosophies driving the parties. The Republicans, which are supposed to represent the Christian right, are more likely to compromise because it is often seen as the civil thing to do.

The political discourse taking place today is driven by the perceptions each side have of the country in which we live. The definition of equality and freedom are vastly different as Republicans tend to believe in personal responsibility and equality of opportunity while the left argues America was founded on racism and only certain people are afforded opportunity; therefore, the government must intervene. They believe their visions for America represent a superior morality, and they are more concerned with winning an argument to achieve their vision, than they are coming to any compromise. They have demonstrated an “ends justify the means” morality when it comes to winning arguments and pursuing their objectives.

It is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the major playbook for the Democrat party. In the first chapter simply entitled “The Purpose,” Alinsky makes it perfectly clear the aim is to create mass organizations that can take from the haves and give to the so called have nots. In other words, take from the rich and give to the poor. Is that civil? Is that moral? Civility and morality take on new definitions when viewing things from Alinsky’s perspective. To the Republicans, wealth is earned, and all Americans share equal opportunity to pursue that which makes them happy. Some people will become rich and others will not. To the Democrats, this represents a system of inequality and unfairness. Their visions for America entail a government powerful enough to dictate equal outcomes for all. This represents a higher morality for them because it is out of a sense of general concern, so they argue, that they pursue such power. The standard definitions of civility and politeness cannot be applied with such stakes presenting themselves at the table.

Alinsky argued that morality was subjective in the sense that people should be willing to surrender their own personal salvation or display a willingness to corrupt themselves for the greater good. He writes on page 25 ̶

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action"; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)

If a concept like absolute morality can be twisted like this for the purpose of pursuing political objectives, what meaning does the word civility have anymore? Alinsky views Christians as “means and end moralists” who are not willing to put their principles and beliefs on the line to pursue their goals. Democrats, being the party mostly recognized for not believing in God, continuously display uncivil behavior designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents and, persuade people to their positions through vicious lies and smear campaigns that not only attack individuals, but political processes and traditions as well. For example, House Speake Pelosi is not only attempting to institute a mail in voting scheme, which would enable fraud on a massive scale, she also has established voting by proxy policies for house members. This enables certain congressional representatives to cast votes for others in their absence. This is an example of an ends justify the means strategy. They believe their end represents a more just and moral America, and anything they can do to push towards that end, is justifiable no matter how corrupt.

The same can be said when it comes to defining the terms of civility. The Republicans, having largely a conservative Christian base, are not as willing to sell out our principles and morality in pursuit of political goals. Many conservatives certainly wish they would grow more of a spine and defend those principles, however. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents, suggest that some people view mere disagreements as being uncivil, so there is cause for worry when presenting our party in a moral and civil manner is the main concern. The hard left, having a moral base in “means and ends morality” have no such concerns, and see the employment of strategies that seek to insult, discredit and destroy reputations as civil dialogue in pursuit of their Utopian ideals because the end is a better, fairer world where everyone is guaranteed equality from a compassionate, caring government.

When two political parties are operating from a completely different base in morality and principle, driven by ideological beliefs which totally contradict one another, is it possible to have civil political discourse? Would one side even want reasonable compromise with the other? America is supposed to be a place where the ideals of freedom, individual liberty and personal responsibility are the bonds that bring us together. Underneath those unifying principles is the belief in a universal truth, that men are meant to be free to pursue their own ambitions. We were all born with the same empty slate of opportunity and we can follow it to whatever ends our own wills and drive will allow. Under such principles there is room for civil dialogue and disagreements. Debates can take place between two parties who have at their hearts the sustainment of such a system. When they oppose each other as vehemently as they do, and one side desires radical change while the other seeks to maintain what they believe to be the last best hope for freedom, civil dialogue is unlikely to occur. That is where we are now.

David Risselada earned a bachelor’s degree in social work form Northeastern State University in 2012 and is currently two classes from completing a master’s degree in professional writing from Liberty University.

Operant Conditioning and the Face Mask Pandemic

The Coronavirus has shaken American life to its core. Not only has this alleged pandemic wrecked a booming economy, putting millions on unemployment and forcing businesses to close; it has left countless millions living a life of perpetual fear. Across the country, an untold number of Americans are fooling themselves into believing that wearing a mask will save them from a pandemic that has proven to be nothing short of an over hyped attempt to gain coercive control of our lives. Despite the over abundance of emerging information proving, for example, that the death numbers were over exaggerated, and hospitals are not as overwhelmed as the media portrayed, the official narrative presenting the Coronavirus as the doomsday threat of our lifetime persists. The consequence is a population with a diminished ability to reason for themselves, not knowing how to discern reality from fantasy while just going along to get along.

To date there has been no official study that has sought the effectiveness of wearing clothe masks, or N-95 respirators as protection from the Coronavirus. This is according Dr. Blaylock M.D. He states that because there have been no conclusive studies, the only comparable illness to compare to Covid-19 is the flu. There is no existing research which indicates that a healthy person wearing a mask is protected from any illness associated with influenza. There is substantial evidence however, according to Blaylock, that wearing a mask can cause serious problems due to low oxygen levels in the blood.  This is referred to as Hypoxia and affects our ability to fight off infections like the flu, or other diseases. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that a person who is infected with a respiratory virus could cause further harm to themselves as particles of the virus will get caught in the mask as they exhale, causing them to be re-inhaled. This leads to a build up of the virus in their system, potentially making them seriously ill.

Despite the availability of this information and other studies like the one released by The World Health Organization suggesting that healthy people don’t need to wear a mask, people across the country are masking up as if their lives depend on it. In 2014 the National Institute of Health published a report from the Singapore Journal of Health entitled “The Use of Facemasks to Prevent Respiratory Infection: A Literature Review in the Context of the Health Belief Model.” This study revolved around people’s motivations for wearing face masks. It found the following-

We found that individuals are more likely to wear facemasks due to the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of being afflicted with life-threatening diseases. Although perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance, perceived benefits of mask-wearing was found to have significant effects on mask-wearing compliance as well. Perceived barriers include experience or perception of personal discomfort and sense of embarrassment. Media blitz and public health promotion activities supported by government agencies provide cues to increase the public’s usage of facemasks.

This study suggests they knew what our reaction to Covid-19 would be and, that they knew how easily we could be convinced to follow along. This is the application of social science at its finest. They have been studying human behavior for decades and know exactly how to manipulate us to their ends. B.F. Skinner wrote in his book “Science and Human Behavior” that man’s behavior can largely be determined by the specific conditions to which he is exposed. In other words, he believed that the environment largely predicted the way men would behave.

If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

This substantiates the results of the NIH article. That study was conducted to determine what motivates people to wear face masks. The manipulation of the environment and pushing the story of a deadly pandemic was the stimulus, and people falling into compliance was the expected response. This was determined in 2014.

What Skinner is essentially saying is that people are programmable, and our behavior is not the result of our own will, or chosen course of action, but a result of environmental circumstances.

Prevailing philosophies of human nature recognize an internal "will" which has the power of interfering with causal relationships and which makes the prediction and control of behavior impossible. To suggest that we abandon this view is to threaten many cherished beliefs—to undermine what appears to be a stimulating and productive conception of human nature (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

In an article entitled “The Psychological Manipulation of Universal Masking,” published by Health Freedom Ohio, the author points out the long used tactic of discrediting people who do not go along with social norms. People who refuse to wear masks are uncaring, selfish and pose a danger to everyone else. No doubt this is social conditioning for the acceptance of mandatory vaccinations. Those wearing masks have been fooled into believing that they are morally superior and that their actions show that they have some deep concern for the safety of us all, despite the evidence proving otherwise. B.F. Skinner had something to say about this as well. In “Beyond Freedom Dignity,” Skinner says that people can be persuaded into behaving in certain ways out of a fear of being rejected. “People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.) In other words, those wearing masks are doing so out of a deep-rooted fear that they will be perceived as contributing to the problem, or not caring about humanity. They will then viciously defend their actions because they have been led to believe that their compliance represents a moral superiority.  

Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products. Those who learn in the natural environment are under a form of control as powerful as any control exerted by a teacher. (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.)

The social sciences have made great progress in understanding and manipulating human behavior. People can indeed be conditioned to behave in predictable ways, making it easier for those seeking to exert their control over society. Skinner’s theories on operant conditioning have attempted to prove that people’s behavior is largely determined by the environment around them, which often can force people to act in ways to save their lives. He put forth a thesis which suggests we have no control of our behavior at all, and that certain factors like the fear of rejection, or appearing to have a morally superior position can reinforce behavior patterns no matter what the truth is. Can those wearing a mask be brought to see that it is making no difference at all? Or, will they continue to do so until they are told they are safe? The one thing that proves Skinner’s theories to be incorrect is the self-evident truth that people have a choice. Just as there are millions wearing masks, there are millions who know the truth and will refuse to do so. If Skinner’s theory were completely accurate, those refusing to wear masks could be pushed into doing so by portraying them as uncompassionate or uncaring. What is the difference?

People are more easily manipulated when the foundations of truth have been ripped out from under them. In America, the concept of absolute truth has been replaced with moral relativism while the very character of our national morality has been under a vicious assault. Americans are turning to atheism at an alarming rate, making them more susceptible to the type of behavioral manipulation described by Skinner. For a person grounded in truth and following God’s word knows they can choose their behavior and not be led by fear. The very foundations of this country are based on the premise that religious and moral men can be free because they can control their behavior. B.F. Skinners theory represents a system which denies God’s truth and leans on men’s own understanding. Which is something the Bible clearly warns us against. A society living in perpetual fear of an over-hyped flu virus is the consequence of developing systems antithetical to God’s and looking to science instead of God.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not, on your own understanding.