Is Civility Overrated?
Why hasn't "we go high" gotten us anywhere?
When They Go Low, We Go High
We all remember Michelle Obama’s iconic aphorism from the 2016 presidential campaign: “When they go low, we go high.” She has spent some amount of energy since then explaining just what she meant by that. Interviewed by Stephen Colbert, she said: ““Going high means finding the purpose in your rage. Rage without reason, without a plan, without direction is just more rage. And we’ve been living in a lot of rage.” On her own Instagram account, she explained: “Going high [is] about making your work count and your voice heard in a way that’s authentic to you and constructive for others. It’s about making sure your commitment to dignity and decency lights the way in everything you do—how you treat others, how you show up in the world, how you respond when your back’s against a wall.” I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself if those statements make clear what Ms. Obama’s meant by her exhortation to “go high”. I think that a lot of us, myself included, heard: “Be civil in our speech and actions even as our opponents are uncivil in theirs.”
“Go high when they go low” is, I’m sure, good advice during the normal push and pull of political discourse. Civility is a virtue to which we all should aspire in our everyday interactions. But these aren’t normal times and some of our interactions are with people who seek our destruction and that of our communities. We have, for the most part, sustained civility even as our opponents engage in the worst sorts of bigotry and hatred. And…they are winning elections while we aren’t. One begins to question whether or not our penchant for civil discourse is serving our aims.
Civility in an Uncivil World
There’s no other way to say it: Thugs employed by the federal government are lynching innocent Americans (and others, of course) in the streets. Supporters of those killers aren’t saying, “Such loss of life is always regrettable but sustaining the rule of law is vital.” Rather they’re saying, “The victims got what they deserved because they are domestic terrorists.” We expect that sort of execrable sentiment from the far right on social media. But when elected representatives engage in that sort of gutter talk, perhaps it’s time for us to re-calibrate.
Referring to the surge in violence on the part of federal agents in Minnesota, Ohio Senator Jerry Cirino stated that the actions were necessary to remove““rapists and murderers and other serious crime offenders” from the U.S. He went on to blame the victims for not cooperating with the federal agents. And that “fears of a “police state” and racial profiling were overblown”. Does civility require us to refrain from telling the Senator that he’s a bald-faced liar and that his blatant falsehoods serve only the interests of a fascist and abjectly racist regime?
State Senator Kristina Roegner claims that, “If you are in compliance with the law, you have nothing to fear.” Does civility require that we avoid telling Senator Roegner that she, like her Republican colleague, is lying through her teeth?
Apparently, Rep. Max Miller is sending letters claiming ICE’s “limited resources are focused on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety.” Does civility require that we “beg to differ” or “agree to disagree” rather than clearly stating that Miller is lying to Ohioans and is enabling the murders of innocents?
We Don’t Have to Be Jerks…But…
Taking the high road means that we don’t, as our opponents do, resort to outright lies and fabrications in support of autocratic regimes. It means that we don’t, as our opponents do, resort to schoolyard profanities, insults, and threats when engaging with those with whom we disagree.
On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that we tip-toe around calling our opponents liars when they have blatantly lied, racists when their statements and policies are specifically intended to increase the suffering of brown and black people, bigots when they bully and oppress our gay and transgender family members and friends, and advocates of violence when they defend lynchings.
So…be kind to the sullen young fellow who takes your order at McDonald’s and gets it wrong. Have an encouraging word for the woman pushing her child in a stroller who breaks in front of you in the cashier line. Smile and wave to the guy who blares his horn at you because you didn’t see the green light quickly enough. But let’s not let our values of civility get in the way of holding accountable those who are using their power to make others’ lives harder than they already are.
Let us know what you think. Is civility overrated? Or is it the best policy in these times?
I think civility is always the best policy. It’s important to set an example of how we would want others to treat us.
Both sides need to try to understand the other side. Those that we call liars may simply be misinformed. Try to refrain from screaming “liar” and instead question the basis for their positions and then point to established facts that contradict. The examples in the article may be people that trust and believe the authorities like Noem, Trump, Miller, etc. (that seem at times to be deliberately misleading them.) When we call those that trust and believe liars, we’ve lost the opportunity to change their beliefs.