What "Civility" Really Means

The buzzword this week has been "civility". Every talking head, especially those of a leftist bent, has encouraged those in the political arena to moderate the rancor. Here's President Obama, who would happily bring a "gun to a knife fight", on the subject:

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds

I could point to an unending stream of commentary advancing the same idea, especially the notion that political rhetoric has become too personal and emotional. Funny that we should dispassionately allow our country, culture, and way of life to be flushed away. Apparently, only an inbred, irrational moron would get angry about a failing society in which he continually loses social and political autonomy.

Since this past summer, I've often appealed to Barry Goldwater's timeless aphorism that "extremism in the pursuit of justice is never a vice". Fittingly, I don't consider "civility" an axiomatic positive, especially if one notes the purposeful ambiguity of the phrase and the people who use it in such context. And I really don't see why either side should avoid heated debate. Politics doesn't exist solely in abstruse historical texts; the repercussions are real and impactful in every day life.

As for the recent appeals, all the calls for civility allude to "heightened rhetoric" and "polarization", yet rarely do they explicitly define what these terms mean. Now that the original portrait of the Tuscon psycho has been undermined, the left has largely backed away from explicitly blaming "anti-immigrationists" and the Tea Party. So one justifiably asks how can conservatives temper their rhetoric? What policies or political opinions have supposedly fomented the current political firestorm? In my original post on "extremism", I said the first statement, followed by another relevant phrase in a later post:

The current mainstream doctrine, one based on the "anything goes" mentality, has defined "extremism" as any position with steadfast loyalty to a set of principles. An "extremist" is now someone who refuses to capitulate and surrender his values, even if said values represent some ultimate good.

Because if not, if one refuses to stand hidebound in opposition to the left, it will continue its gradual march against every traditional edifice we have left.

In other words, the call for "civilty" is nothing more than a call for surrender to the liberal zeitgeist. After all, look at the past two years of political discourse. Every single conservative has been lambasted as "extreme". Leftists have criticized every conservative position as motivated by surreptitious ends, almost always racism, bigotry, and homophobia. Leftists consider even these initiatives, not paying for illegal immigrant healthcare, wanting to speak English, and voting for a white person, as out of bounds.

So again, I ask what exactly do they want. One can conclude then that the only viable option for conservatives to achieve civility is to fully accept leftism. In the end, they put forth "unity" and "togetherness" bromides because conservatism is somewhat based upon insularity and exclusion - after all, Harlem isn't Harlem with a bunch of white SWPLs.

Over the past few days, we've seen that leftists will attempt to neuter conservatism in the guise of tolerance. We don't solve this problem via puerile gun metaphors, vandalism, or debating which side is worse - instead, conservative need to put their collective foot in the ground and not relent. And I optimistically believe that the Right is waking up and understanding that no conservative can ever attain leftist approval.

Update: Also, if this had nothing to do with politics, then why is everyone all of a sudden concerned about civility? We now know this act was completely independent of political motive, so why has it spurred a debate about political enmity. In my opinion, the left has continued with the "tolerance" paradigm as a means of implicit excoriation and censure of conservatism. The initial message has changed from last weekend, but the intention remains.