Civility and Political Tactics

Let’s start by recognizing that this is not a simple question or a straightforward dichotomy. Choosing to see this as an either/or is accepting the sucker’s choice. It is accepting our role in their movie. Because one of the reasons this is a gnarly question is it is layered.

1. On the surface we observe events and, particularly when we are outraged, we speak out.
2. Beneath this is an argument over what we should be arguing about.
3. Beneath that is a conflict over how we should engage in conflict, how to best identify and resolve our disagreements. 

When someone focuses on civility as politeness (alone) they are choosing to engage in the argument over how we should conduct our arguments. They think this is what we should be arguing about, likely for honest reasons.

When someone focuses on the importance of their favorite single-issue (whatever it is), they are choosing to engage in the middle level, likely for honest reasons.

When someone is so offended by a presidential tweet or policy change that they stand up and scream ‘enough is enough’ they are choosing to engage at the tip of the iceberg, likely for honest reasons.

This level one agent is, if he is not also consider levels 2 and 3, is likely being pushed and pulled by the results of elite struggles over agenda setting. His energy is positive, frustration real, but efforts usually reflect a weaker form of agency based on a failure to see the strategic dimension in politics. He is being mobilized to fight someone else’s battles as if they were his own.

A level two active agent, if not considering 1 and 3, is more cognizant of the landscape but has chosen rational ignorance (I will only learn about and care about one issue) as his lens and is thus similarly mobilizing a thin form of agency vulnerable to being hijacked easily.

A level three active agent, if not considering 1 and 2, is a preacher with a congregation openly assaulting each other in the pews. He is choosing to stand above the fray and, as a result, the fray is ignoring him.

MLK said the ‘power without love is reckless and abusive; love without power is sentimental and anemic.’ We need to be smarter than those who are comfortable with any one of these alone, because each alone is a recipe for feeling powerful while disempowering ourselves, feeling loving while enabling hatred.

See the strategic dimension. Do the work to try to understand the forces we are up against. Choose to take positions about the issues others make salient today that also communicates your own determination of what are the most important issues to focus on (and which are more distractions) and does this in a way that enacts how you believe we should engage in conflict.

Win in the short term in ways that create resources to continue to win over the medium and long term.

Win in a way that respects the game itself, because perhaps the central threat embedded in the current rise of hatred is the threat to democracy itself.

Just to be clear (since civility is currently under attack as a form a surrender): we have to be resolute and tough minded. We have to stand up. We have to avoid pointing fingers at each other and trying to police the resistance--let a hundred flowers bloom--because there are many ways to stand up for decency. And we need to try to be strategic, encourage out allies to try to think strategically, try to avoid being dragged into movie, playing a role he cast for us, and instead standing for all to see as the rational and kind, thoughtful and fair alternative to the current indecency and ignorance on parade.