In all the discussions about “civility” the last few years – both in the general public discourse, and on this blog – I’ve often had to wonder what the term means, because it seems to me that leftists routinely propose things which are incivil, in and of themselves. Things of which the mere proposition is a serious threat to, or attack upon, many of their fellow citizens.
As a hypothetical example, let’s take theft. If I come up to you and I propose / threaten, most politely, to steal your livelihood, property and earnings: am I not being incivil, no matter how polite my speech is?
Now suppose I don’t propose to take the risk of thieving from you directly, but instead I propose to have the government seize your earnings on my behalf. The example is no longer hypothetical; it’s what left-liberals propose every day of the year, in every political platform.
I could also talk about speech codes (leftists suppressing speech they don’t like), late-term abortion (leftists claiming the ‘right’ to kill viable human beings), gun control (leftists trying to take self-defense away from people they don’t like), government mandates (leftists endlessly proposing to tell their fellow citizens how to live – backed by government force), etc.
Why do we not recognize, and swiftly dismiss or condemn, their incivility? Is civility more a matter of the forms and rules that people uphold when speaking, or of the inner attitude/intent toward one’s fellow citizen?
Yes. It’s the only way they can support their narrative, and because they count on the better nature of their foes. They can snipe and verbally attack, but heaven forfend you respond in kind.
It also goes back to the sniper round vs. broad brush that I’ll debate with NDT.
The end question it comes down to is, how much of ourselves are we willing to sacrifice to save the whole?
On college campuses, conservative speakers are frequently shouted down or even attacked when trying to present their views. “Free Speech Zones” routinely have conservative items defaced or torn off because someone didn’t like what was said (or more properly didn’t like who said it).
The media routinely spout that conservative groups are dangerous, racist and enslaving the masses. Movies are made ignoring real threats but show conservative groups are terrorists and, if not alike in motives or methods, then worse than the Taliban in wanting to enslave women, kill homosexuals, enslave other races in order to keep their monetary and racial domination.
Democratic political leaders consistently and purposely misstate conservative ideas and policies which the media enthusiastically repeat if not outright endorse.
The places conservatives can speak, such as talk radio or blogs, are disparaged as places only weak, uneducated and hateful people go and no right-minded person would be seen. But even the social sites routinely shut us down with claims of “hate speech”.
When peaceful protests and public meetings are demonized by the above, when questioning your representatives about policies is harassment and abuse, when you hide your conservatism at your work or even from acquaintances because you know (and probably seen) the hate and vitriol displayed by your bosses, friends and family it makes it difficult to even show your head.
If you become just a little incivil in speaking your mind, the establishment, political leadership (even in your own party), the media and others quickly pronounce, “There you see it. Now you know all of the things we have warned you about are true. The conservative facade has fallen and you can see the true evil behind it.” You are now as shunnable as someone who left the Amish faith, an unperson in their eyes.
Truly, what can we do to display we are not the caricatures from the media, not the monsters waiting in the wings to impose fascist dictatorship on the rest, not wanting to exterminate the “others” because they are different?
The short answer, eeyore, is that we refuse to accept their premise.
Instead of trying to prove that they are lying, we attack them as liars and slanderers and bigots.
We should remember that we’re not dealing with rational or intelligent people. We are dealing with bigots and racists, people who have branded us as Nazis and terrorists and racists because of our skin color and our political views. They cannot be dealt with reasonably because they did not reason themselves into their views; they’re acting out of sheer hate and selfish power lust.
They depend on us fighting with one hand tied behind our backs out of respect for “the rules”. And if we were to fight as they do, both dirty AND with the facts, they would be destroyed, and they know it.
I agree with everything in comment #4 but let me add this:
As a former hardcore lefty ideologue and I mean HARDCORE, (now libertarian) I know from experience that mockery and ridicule is one of your best and most potent weapons.
The thing the Left hates most is to not be taken seriously. The fall of OWS is a very good example of the effectiveness of this strategy. Remember when they were going to be a force to be reckoned with? Now they are a punch line in a “rape tent” joke. The truth is sometimes you have to go to their level and hit back twice as hard.
Lisa – Interesting comment and fits my experience. I usually just deal with the soft-core lefties, the “nice” ones – and my experience is that if I can “nicely” (but validly) point to a ridiculous aspect or implication of something they’re saying, they give up instantly… to my face, at least.
My solution is to actually not be those things. Support liberty and the (valid) rights of your fellow humans; work to find inner peace and constructive purpose regardless of what ‘the world’ is/says/does; etc.
In a word, ILC – YES.
Next question?
Regards,
Peter H.
Lisa is correct. As a former lefty myself, she’s pointed out a VERY effective strategy in dealing with the left: MOCK THEM. They can’t stand to be laughed at.
ILC,
“Things of which the mere proposition is a serious threat to, or attack upon, many of their fellow citizens.”
What is interesting about this statement is that there is no attempt to suggest that this is a matter of opinion or perspective. No, these are ideas that ARE “serious threats to or attacks upon” those folks who hold different viewpoints. There is no distinction made between an idea and ACTING on that idea. There is no distinction in implementing these ideas in the political process at a state or Federal level and in talking about them in a discussion page here. I find that disturbing, as it seems to roll back two hundred and fifty odd years of intellectual advance that the Enlightenment helped kick off.
“If I come up to you and I propose / threaten, most politely, … am I not being incivil, no matter how polite my speech is?”
Yes, I agree, this is uncivil conduct, if by “propose” you mean “dictate,” along with “threaten.” The form you use it in is one where one party feels strong enough to impose their will on the other party. If I “threaten” you, I am using the actual possibility of force (i.e., this is an action) to coerce you to fall in line with what I believe or at least shut up. We can agree that “propose” can have a different meaning though to the one you use—as in something that is open to discussion and that can be freely assented to or not. When I “propose” or “converse with you” about this option, I am expressing an opinion—something that we can agree to disagree on.
What of the example that you use to make your point? I would offer three observations. First, it is not at all clear that there is an equivalence between your thief and having a government that you elected as part of a democratic process initiate a redistribution of resources, say through higher taxes. Those are two different situations to me. The thief has not been given the green light by the police to take your stuff. If the government increases your tax rate, it does so as the democratically elected representative of the citizenry; of which you are one; who has assented to this democratic principle. And, if the citizenry don’t like the move, they can vote the bums out and put in others whose policies they like better. Wouldn’t be the first time!
Second, since the government giveth as well as taketh, it might also be the case that your thief might be giving you some largess back, say, in the form of oil or green company subsidies or a mortgage interest deduction that renters do not receive. Or, in the form of fire insurance, a police force (puts the thief out of business?), search and rescue, etc…
Third, what if liberals support these ideas everyday, lobby, and try to elect governments that hold their views? It would be no different to what conservatives are doing all around the country right now–discussing and where possible implementing their ideas. I would remind you that this political platform is not one that will have any impact on whether taxes will be raised or not, apart from the power of speech to help change minds. So, these are ideas; we are not implementing a change here that possibly affects anything more than those who offer their opinions. Do you really believe that any liberal or progressive voice will be able to “propose” or “threaten” or “silence” anyone here? A clearly laughable idea. On your reading, I or any other liberal would be as equally as right as you to take views that I find uncivil on the right and allow these to be used as an excuse for acting with incivility towards those with whom I disagree. I do not think that is true. And folks on left wing sites that act in a similar manner to some here are equally as wrong as those who think that the ideas that I offer are illegitimate in their own right, especially when these ideas have been part of political and economic discussions in one form or another for the last 4000+ years of human history.
“I could also talk about speech codes” and yes, those on the right do—it is just OK when they are speech codes for things that those on the right support.
“Is civility more a matter of the forms and rules that people uphold when speaking, or of the inner attitude/intent toward one’s fellow citizen?” In the end, the “inner attitude” that holds that some political views are illegitimate because some strongly disagree with them, and gives these folks who disagree license to behave in an uncivil manner interferes with the very process (the free exchange of ideas) that the owners of this blog say they believe in. It is an unhelpful “inner attitude.” And maybe some formal rules that people uphold when speaking would help allow for a freer exchange of ideas here. If the owners of this blog really thought as some here do, why would they ever invite those with a different point of view to share their ideas? Why would those with the “inner attitude” that ILC describes even bother to engage these people whose ideas are claimed to be illegitimate?
For shits and giggles, as has been suggested…
[Comment deleted – violates GP terms]
[Comment deleted – violates GP terms]
Actually, there is ample proof that the “redistribution” system put in place by Passing By and its Obama Party is theft.
Moreover, the desperate Passing By and its Obama Party are explicitly stating that the power of the Federal government should be used to publicly suppress speech that they deem “hateful”.
These are facts. Passing By has nothing but blather, mainly because Passing By is a malevolent and malicious child who obfuscates and lies while supporting these sorts of theft.
“First, it is not at all clear that there is an equivalence between your thief and having a government that you elected as part of a democratic process initiate a redistribution of resources, say through higher taxes.”
There is. I would agree with you if we had a flat tax (or some variant of it where bottom X% were exempt from taxation, X being the distress line) — we would be choosing to tax ourselves to give resources to those who cannot fend for themselves. Under progressive taxation, the middle has enormous power in creating a system of legal theft of their fellow citizens. At some point, our system of governance became bastardized enough that it is now a question of majority voting to take from minority. The top and bottom income earners don’t matter when electing a government. So politicians gain and retain power by catering to the middle, who, if they do not possess the wisdom to see that it is indeed theft, will vote to create progressive taxation and use the government to forcefully take from others through fiat.
“Second, since the government giveth as well as taketh, it might also be the case that your thief might be giving you some largess back, say, in the form of oil or green company subsidies or a mortgage interest deduction that renters do not receive.”
Again, no need for government to play the awful benefactor — no need to take and give back. No subsidies, no largesse, no deductions needed. Just do a flat tax (and exempt bottom x% from taxation) and no deductions.
“Or, in the form of fire insurance, a police force (puts the thief out of business?), search and rescue, etc…”
Law and order, basic defense, public goods, etc.. Agree. That’s the primary role of government as we libertarians see it. Alas, today the biggest role of government is to take from some and give to others.
ILC, good article. I always wondered about this myself. Many of my genuinely kind-hearted and well-meaning liberal friends, when I argue with them that poverty is not government’s problem to solve — it is ours (theirs and mine), ask me the following question quite innocently — “but those who are less generous, will they give to poor and needy unless they were forced to?” — without realizing what they are saying.
A useful resource, Jane Austen, is this article.
Key paragraph:
So you can tell them their insight is absolutely correct; liberals who believe in and demand wealth redistribution from rich to poor will not actually do so unless the government compels them to do it. The statistics clearly show that liberals will not give voluntarily and must be coerced into doing so.
That should keep them quiet for a bit. 🙂
Hi Jane,
“I would agree with you if we had a flat tax (or some variant of it where bottom X% were exempt from taxation, X being the distress line) — we would be choosing to tax ourselves to give resources to those who cannot fend for themselves. Under progressive taxation, the middle has enormous power in creating a system of legal theft of their fellow citizens.”
To better understand your intuition, let me posit a thought experiment. If I understand you right, what annoys you about the current system is the fact that there is redistribution from the top to primarily the middle (though the bottom gets a little). Consequently, elections are won by appealing to the middle that you think gets most of the benefits. Is that correct? If I have that right, I wonder if the rate of the flat tax makes a difference. If we set the flat tax at say, 40% of income (with an exemption to some minimum level of income, with each additional dollar over that threshold taxed at the flat rate), this overcomes the objections you make concerning theft by the middle class, because everyone is paying the same tax rate, so no one and no one is getting any deductions. Or would you still consider this to be theft or something else?
Jane Austen –
Don’t bother with ‘It’ at #16.
Trying to explain the very basic concept that any monies a person acquires legally are their property, and therefore any taking (taxation) by force (or threat of force) of that property by any entity, including government, is theft, will amount to a colossal waste of your time, energy and talent.
All ‘It’ knows how to do is:
1. avoid answering specific questions/challenges
2. mangle the plain meaning of other people’s words to have them ‘saying’ things that they never said
3. pretend that its opponent never said things that that did say
4. shift the topic when ‘It’ is getting its ass kicked in a debate that ‘It’ went looking for and is in any danger of losing
5. Lie shamelessly and repeatedly to ‘muddy the water’
6. Flee the confrontation with a smarmy “I just don’t see this the way that you do” rejoinder when 1-5 don’t get ‘It’ the results that it wants
7. Get snot nosed and uppity and presume to lecture its opponent on their imagined lack of debating skills (according to ‘It’, the rest of us her merely “state our beliefs”, while ‘It’ debates and discusses a topic intelligently and always makes the case for its point of view)
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t hold that back for some reason.
Best to leave this little nobody to barking at the moon (which turned a deaf ear to it years ago, as I heard it).
Hey, It:
Since you’re fond of the “the people voted for it” pure democracy approach, how’s about we take a vote here (which I’d win in a landslide) to officially appoint me as a tax collector and come to you and take 100% of what you’ve got?
Hmm?
Nothing wrong with it; the people voted for it, and it’s for the greater good, so you’ll have no complaints.