Exploration: What we are harvesting so far from the Civility Polls

By Ron Mock

So far (as of February 14) I have posted 6 Civility Polls (or Quizzes) to this website. Five of them have earned comments.

(Only the Quaker Baseball Civility Poll languishes without any responses… but that’s ok! Pitchers and catchers report soon, and when they do, your baseball sap will begin to rise and you will start pining for baseball content. Fangraphs, Baseball Reference, ESPN, and MLB’s site won’t be enough. Then you’ll be glad for the Quaker Baseball Civility Quiz, which is still available here.)

We are doing these polls for four reasons:

1. They are intended to be interesting and some of them even fun.

2. Some of them give you an opportunity to process current events.

3. They should help us all think through what it means to be civil, and distinguish behaviors that corrode our political culture from those that strengthen it.

4. They are part of the Project’s effort to define what civility is, and distinguish it from incivility.

This is a progress report on goals 3 and 4, using your comments and responses as of Saturday, February 13.

At the end of this report you can find the raw data we have collected so far – my summary of comments people have made. We have had 47 comments so far. I don't have an exact count of how many different people that represents, but I estimate it to be about 30.

So far we are getting a somewhat impressionistic picture of civility, with some strong near-consensus themes and some possible conflicting responses. Respondents have also articulated some singular but not necessarily contradictory views, worthy of further examination.

I have posted at the bottom of this report the raw comments, organized according to thematic commonalities and whether they are reports of civility or incivility, in the eyes of the commenter. I have summarized these comments in the section just above the raw comments. In that section I have also added projected comments that might be made by someone defending (or proposing) uncivil behavior as a proper approach to at least some political issues. I am not endorsing these countervailing views. I am instead offering them as a sort of devil’s advocacy, a measure to help us avoid building our own pro-civility bubble.

WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THESE COMMENTS:

Some of the feedback we’ve gotten so far confirms notions we already have been attaching to the concepts of civility and incivility. But others invite discussion. The Project will use these summaries as grist for exercises, questions at events, further Civility Polls, inspirations for the Civility Reading Group, and other ways of fostering conversation about what civility means and how it might best be applied to strengthening political cultures at all levels of American life.

WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THESE COMMENTS:

· Highlight those you think are most worthy of exploring further.

· Email comments, arguments, etc., using the Suggestion Box – there’s a link here and on the bottom of each page of the Civility Project website. If you post something, let us know if we have permission to post your comments – especially those where you question whether we are getting civility right, or whether civility should even be a priority.

· Send us examples of exemplary civility (or incivility). Explain why you see it as a telling example.

· Respond to any of the civility quizzes (or polls – we’ve called them both). All are still available on the Project website here or here.

SUMMARIZED AND ORGANIZED COMMENTS:

Items written in black represent my summary of respondent’s comments. Items written in blue represent my attempts to predict what a respondent might say who is uneasy about civility, or thinks sometimes it is not the proper response. Note that these predictions assume the respondent would feel there are good (moral and practical) reasons supporting their response.

A. Strong, near-consensus themes.

1. Attitude toward political conflict

CIVILITY: Civil people see operate from beliefs that:

· It is better and/or more effective to work across partisan lines.

· Disagreement is an opportunity to learn, make improvements.

· It is wise to be open to change opinions, behaviors in light of new facts.

· Democratic deliberation is capable of producing good outcomes.

INCIVILITY: Uncivil people believe ( the following are predicted answers):

· Forcing one’s own views is better than risking bad (evil, unwelcome) outcomes.

· Disagreement with one’s position is a threat to needed progress and/or current successful conditions.

· Civility might result in entrenching a bad status quo or permitting a bad change.

· Democracy is a tool for achieving important goods despite opposition, stifling bad ideas, and/or preserving good things from being canceled or destroyed.

2. Attitude toward opponents and self

CIVILITY: Civil people see:

· Themselves as fallible and fallen, like everyone else.

· Opponents as members of the community to be loved.

· Opponents as generally welcome bearers of disagreement.

· Opponents as potential colleagues in a search for better outcomes.

INCIVILITY: Uncivil people see ( the following are predicted answers):

· Themselves as defending truth, where the risk of falling into destructive error is grave

· Opponents as generally mistaken, deluded, or corrupt.

· Opponents as dangers to the good who must be prevented from enacting their ideas.

3. Behavior toward opponents

CIVILITY: Civil people will:

· Acknowledge the existence of divisions.

· Reach out to opponents, invites then into healing discourse.

· Express desire to improve things for everyone while leaving no one with needs unmet.

· Listen to opponents

o Until they cawn describe opponents’ views/interests/feard/goals/motives to their satisfaction

o Without condoning opponents’ “errors.”

· Acknowledge strengths in the opponents’ views

· Affirm/praise opponents’ good and decent motives, when detected.

· Confront violence, hatred, injustice without demeaning anyone.

· Avoid casting blame where fault is not clear.

· Comfort and encourage those who suffer.

· Control their own emotions.

· Identify areas of agreement and disagreement.

· Avoid inflammatory comments – firm and vivid, but as gentle as possible.

· Appeal to opponents’ better natures. (“Speak to that of God in each person.”)

· Invoke common humanity

· Use “we” language, as if both sides are on the same side of the table.

· Give reasons for their own views.

· Consistent – live up to the standards they articulate, and those they expect from others.

· Persistently civil, whether winning or losing on the issues, and whether or not the other side responds in kind.

· Always honest – never give others reason to doubt.

· Acknowledge difficulties in the road ahead.

· Work hard for justice

· Treat opponents as the civil people would want to be treated.

INCIVILITY:

Uncivil people may: (in this section I am summarizing actual comments from respondents)

· Lecture more than listen.

· Give one-sided, incomplete, skewed treatment to opponents’ views.

· Use hyperbole.

· Attribute to all opponent the worst views and actions of extremists they probably disagree with.

· Demand opponents abandon their views.

· Describe opponents’ opposition as a threat to democracy.

· Flag-wave for only their side.

· Insult those they disagree with.

· Condescend.

· Seek unity only when it suits their goals.

· Apply different standards to different sides.

· Settle for yearning for civility rather than working or risking for it.

· Leave (reluctantly, due to scarce time or resources?) bruised people to heal on their own.

B. Intriguing Singular views, expressed by only one person at a time, worthy of further exploration (CAVEAT: The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the Civility Project management. But they all do seem to be promising seeds for further discussion.)

· Civility involves “inviting everyone to step into the light.”

· Civility involves “seeking unity without quashing diversity.’

· Civility involves “putting differences aside.”

· Civility can include “artful provocations”, maybe? (What’s an “artful provocation”?)

· Civility = statesmanship.

· The Gettysburg Address wasn’t civil because Lincoln, having gotten the upper hand in the Civil War, was telling people to “sit down and shut up” or asking “can’t we all just get along?”

· Civility includes “agreeing to disagree”?

· It’s hard to respond honestly without being condescending.