Regrettably, heated and sometimes visceral debate during political campaigns is nothing new.
The animosity between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton grew beyond Hamilton’s strong support for ratification of the Constitution and Jefferson’s vehement opposition. Each paid newspaper editors to attack the other. Personal politics was introduced to our new nation. Issues regarding morality, race and loyalty were injected during their substantive debate over ratification. History certainly repeats itself.
Today, both political parties and their candidates encourage personal attacks instead of engaging in a serious discussion of issues. Advances in communication technology, beyond newspapers, such as the internet, television and radio, make it easier to spread toxic incivility. The media reap the financial rewards from provocation and controversy.
The lack of civil discourse extends beyond politics. Heightened animosity is felt throughout society. It exists in such disparate areas as: children’s sports, local zoning, library content, and labor disputes to name just a few. More than ever we need to encourage civil discourse.
Among the goals of the Gov. M. Jodi Rell Center for Public Service at the University of Hartford, founded in 2011, is: “to foster environments where discussion – guided by courtesy, curiosity of thought and understanding, flourishes.”
The first steps seem obvious:
—Listen attentively and seek to understand someone else’s point of view.
—Assume positive intent. Assume others have an interest in the greater good.
—Consider how your behavior seems to others. While being passionate is a good thing, intimidation, shouting, threats and insults erode civility.
—Stay focused on the issues at hand. Avoid personalizing issues or using personal attacks when you disagree.
—Make room for respectful disagreement. Dissent is a democratic right.
—Share your perspective thoughtfully. Respect the time allotted to all members of the public and to meeting leaders.
While challenging a person’s position on an issue certainly is appropriate, questioning their motive personalizes the discussion and is generally counterproductive. Similarly, after stating your position on an issue, or a candidate, to then say that you don’t want to discuss it, indicates that you don’t want to listen to the other person.
Unless we are willing to listen, we never can get to the point where we are able to say: That is a good point, I hadn’t thought of that? Ultimately, we don’t need to agree; but we always need to listen. And we need to remember that we have an obligation to make clear to our supporters or surrogates that civil discourse is required. How can we uphold a higher standard if we either encourage or knowingly allow others to make the personal attacks on our behalf?
Elections, state and federal legislation, court decisions and local issues are often complex. Our discussion of those requires starting from a position of respect for others. Of course, that respect can be lost depending on what others say and do but encouraging civil discourse will go a long way toward bringing us together.
Civility is needed now more than ever.
Marshall Collins is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Gov. M. Jodi Rell Center for Public Service at the University of Hartford.
