Why a more polite political community would be a more productive one.
The strange metaphor “Washington is broken” became more firmly embedded in common wisdom during the recent debt-ceiling debate. But the debate revealed that Washington isn’t simply broken; it’s also rude. As some renew calls for reform to address government dysfunction, perhaps the best place to start would be to ask public figures to be more polite.
It is not just that it is discrediting and unseemly when politicians are discourteous; civility also has an instrumental value. A civil political community can be a more productive one.
U.S. President Barack Obama described the debt-limit-negotiation process as “messy.” It was actually a lot worse. One senator referred to opponents within his own party as “hobbits.” The response was to call the senator a “troll.” A congressman referred to the final deal that was reached as a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” One senator asked another if he had “lost his mind” and another called a leader from the opposing party “childish.”
Civility is actually required to make democracy work properly. Deliberation, reason-giving, compromise, and consensus-building have been called democratic virtues. But they are all drawn together by civility.
What should we make of the debt limit deal? Read one expert's analysis here.
First, civility encourages listening to what really matters. One insult tucked into an otherwise well-crafted argument will almost certainly ensure that only the insult is heard and responded to. Undoubtedly, the senator who heard he had been called a troll did not hear much else. Because the process of compromise involves learning precisely what part of the other side’s perspective you can live with, anything that discourages listening reduces the prospects for compromise. Of course, incivility reduces the prospects for persuasion, as well. Whether the goal is achieving compromise or winning a convert, the distractions of rudeness will not be helpful. A civil argument is a more powerful argument.
Second, civility can ameliorate the fragmenting forces in our society by encouraging respect and helping to build relationships. It really is true that a “soft answer turns away wrath,” but, beyond that, discourteous speech not only distracts from the crux of arguments, it tends to polarize positions and discourage the kind of consensus-building needed to make “Washington work.” In the context of lawmakers who work with each other every day, uncivil language can make for a terrible working relationship. While compromise requires a healthy understanding of your opponent’s views, consensus-building requires a healthy relationship with your opponent.
Why the U.S. debt deal ignores the obvious: a faltering economy. Learn more here.
Third, civility will encourage an engagement of the broader community. Average citizens don’t understand filibusters, cloture motions, or bipartisan committees, but they do “get it” when they see politicians treating each other with respect. Civility is immediately comprehensible to citizens and, for that reason, effectively communicates the message that there is respect for competing views in the political community. If politicians don’t at least respect each other and each other’s perspectives, it is likely that citizens will believe that they will be disrespected, too, if they engage with the issues.
In fairness, politics is not a tea party (so to speak), Washington is certainly not the only uncivil capital city, and most differences will not be completely bridged by simple courtesy. But surely our politicians should take the obvious steps that could reduce the dysfunctional brinkmanship that we’ve recently seen.
The point is that some of what is broken in Washington can be fairly easily fixed. Couldn't we at least get started ... please?
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment