Civility in Politics

I want to draw a distinction, from the beginning, between middle-class prissiness ('good manners') and civility. This is not a defence of the former tendency.

Lately, there seems to be a concentrated effort to deride and despise attempts at civility in politics. This 'new phase' of incivility may have begun with the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, but it was particularly evident during the campaign to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour leadership, and in the subsequent election of his successor, Keir Starmer.

I hate those affected, class-signifying displays of 'manners' as much as the next man, but I'm talking about a relatively straightforward request that we treat one another with some fundamental level of respect and integrity that is due to all people.

The counterpoint is offered here:
https://www.publicbooks.org/against-civility/?utm_content=buffer767ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Yet at this of all times, asking for civility seems to miss the point. Calls for civility can be staid and conservative, perhaps even reactionary and acquiescent. What the supporters of right-wing populists deserve is not respect, but confrontation. Being civil when facing gross injustice appears simply hypocritical and inauthentic. Advocating civility can place etiquette and manners above equality and justice, and the call for us all to “get along” risks glossing over serious and important political divisions. In a world of civility, we must wear a mask, hiding our anger from view.

This, again, misses the point. Nobody is asking anybody to compromise their principles nor the veracity of their argument in order to appear polite. That's not the point at all. In fact, your argument is enhanced (I would say) when you clearly and respectfully acknowledge the dignity of your opponent, regardless of the political views they hold, even when those views are personally abhorrent.

This boils down to a simple idea -- respect the dignity of each person you interact with. None of us live by this principle perfectly, but if this isn't your starting principle, then I can't see you ever persuading anybody of anything.

looksee

Agreed.

That's an interesting point about the difference between politeness and civility.

Rodney Bathgate

Where would you stand on protesters outside a politicians home, heckling the politician (and their family members / visitors) as they come and go?

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Where would you stand on protesters outside a politicians home, heckling the politician (and their family members / visitors) as they come and go?

They should never be criminalised. The last thing we need is a legal imposition of political etiquette, this is not the Soviet Union.

But morally, I think it's indefensible, in this country. What do you think?

Rodney Bathgate

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They should never be criminalised. The last thing we need is a legal imposition of political etiquette, this is not the Soviet Union.

But morally, I think it's indefensible, in this country. What do you think?

It is disgusting behaviour, a far cry from ‘civility’.

I would have concern over your use of ‘in this country’ when denouncing it though.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

It is disgusting behaviour, a far cry from ‘civility’.

I would have concern over your use of ‘in this country’ when denouncing it though.

The reason for that qualifying statement is that obviously there are examples, in other countries, of such blatant injustice that any objection to personalised protesting is petty and ridiculous.

Imagine someone working themselves into a state of nervous excitement over people protesting outside the palace of some tin-pot dictator; that's hardly rational, either.

Rodney Bathgate

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The reason for that qualifying statement is that obviously there are examples, in other countries, of such blatant injustice that any objection to personalised protesting is petty and ridiculous.

Imagine someone working themselves into a state of nervous excitement over people protesting outside the palace of some tin-pot dictator; that's hardly rational, either.

Not sure who is ‘working themselves into a state of nervous excitement’. You started the thread you obviously have strong feelings on the general topic.

What about the so called ‘remoaners’ outside Boris Johnson’s home after the Brexit referendum?

Mearings

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Not sure who is ‘working themselves into a state of nervous excitement’. You started the thread you obviously have strong feelings on the general topic.

What about the so called ‘remoaners’ outside Boris Johnson’s home after the Brexit referendum?

Was that the time that the police were called?

Rodney Bathgate

Mearings wrote: »

Was that the time that the police were called?

By the nosey busy body neighbour who claimed to be ‘concerned’ for his partners safety who then leaked it to the press? No.

They were at his house ‘protesting’ for weeks after Brexit vote, as I recall.

looksee

Are we talking about the politics of civility though, or civility in politics? Does civility, of itself, have any politics?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Are we talking about the politics of civility though, or civility in politics? Does civility, of itself, have any politics?

The first question is easier to answer. This is about civility in politics, I think the politics of civility is called etiquette, and that's definitely not something I'm interested in, and I doubt many of us are.

Civility, in this case, is a question of respect for one another (or failing that, courteousness). Does that have any politics? I don't think so, because I cannot think of any political outlook for which friendliness and respect aren't beneficial.