Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Carolyn Isabelle's avatar

Excellent point about when civility is appropriate and not.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution gave us a system of government featuring a separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. This arrangement works best when competing factions gather to engage in civil discourse to formulate policy. Civil discourse is characterized by discussion, debate, and eventual compromise. However, if the need to "compromise" is used to justify the denial of rights and justice delayed, I'd prefer to pass on it in favor of agitation. Likewise, while civil discourse is necessary for productive policy debate, if one side is determined to name call, belittle, and demonize the opponent over every difference in opinion, the exercise of civil discourse becomes a lost cause. While one can make the case that the Orange Menace (not very civil of me) is not solely responsible for the loss of civility (the trend predates Trump's entrance to the national political stage), he has brought it to the lowest point in my lifetime. Every day Trump's rhetoric hits a new low. Civil discourse which is needed to meet people where they are and move them to a more enlightened point of view seems lost in 21st century America.

Wendy Parker's avatar

I feel redundant in saying 'excellent work,' but you always seem to produce excellent work, so here we are. This one is important. I hope it gets the traction it should here.

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?