Requiem for Civility

Some things never change. I do not wish to engage in a weeks-long battle of wits (which, based on prior experience, I know would happen), so I will simply say that this will be my final post on the subject of civility.

Perhaps the best example of that which I think we should aspire to is the relationship between President Ronald Reagan (Conservative) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (Liberal). These two men led our country, one as President, one as Speaker, from polar opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. They continually fought with ferocity for the policies they believed in, however, they (usually) avoided making it personal. The running joke was that "before 6p.m. it's all politics; after 6p.m. we're friends."

The bottom line is this: The free and open exchange of ideas is not analogous to a math problem. While there are many strongly held positions, when it comes to ideas, there usually is no absolute truth. The point is to encourage people to read, to think, and to inform themselves such that they become more engaged in what's going around them. Petty invective and personal attacks do nothing of the sort.

Reply to The Warning

If two people come to two different conclusions about the same thing, there must be a reason.  If you're talking about a math problem, it's easy to retrace steps and find where the two people diverged, and it's clear which one of them was wrong.  For example, take 7 + 3 x 10.  If someone says that the answer is 100, you can tell that she added the 7 to the 3 before multiplying, and that was a mistake.  There's even a correct way to describe each step.  When you multiply 3 and 10, you're finding the product.  when you add 30 to 7, you're finding the sum.

With the topics that we've been touching on so far, it's way more difficult to figure out where the thought processes diverge, but they obviously do.  An event happens, and for whatever reason, person A chooses to view it through the filter A (Fox News), person B chooses to view it through filter B (say, CNN).  Once the facts that either filter chooses to relay make it to person A and B's brain, they both process the facts and make their decision based on their own set of values.  There's also other sorts of noise that may influence things.  If person A or person B hears person C's opinion on the matter, they might be inclined to agree or disagree based on the level of respect they have for person C.

Anyway, the point of all of this is, at every step, person A and person B are making a decision.  Person A chooses Fox News because he thinks it's better than CNN.  Implicit in that decision is a relative lack of respect for CNN.  When the facts are being pondered, a person's values dictate what is and is not important.  In forming our opinions, we are acting as judges, and our verdicts are the sum of multiple smaller judgments.  For example, a person might say that it's more important for gay people to be able to say that they're married than it is to protect the definition of marriage.  In doing so, it's hard to believe that someone can come to the opposite conclusion without "missing" something.

Now, the methods we might use to convey this sentiment vary, but the feeling is universal.  Someone might excessively use quotation marks as a relatively subtle way to challenge the legitimacy of something, someone else might choose a more blunt method.  Is there a difference between:  "How's your 'son'?" and flat out saying "I think your wife cheated on you?"  Maybe, but not a significant one.

Thus far, with this blog, my posts have been fairly blunt.  I haven't gone out of my way to offend anyone, but I also haven't gone out of my way to soften anything up.  I know that there's not always an exactly right answer, but if we can get back to the math problem example, we're making different choices from the get go.  One of us is adding 7 to 3, the other is multiplying 3 by 10.  I think that this blog has a chance to be interesting if we can avoid the superficial "agreeing to disagree" and start talking about and maybe even attacking thought processes and values.

I would love for all of us to say "This is how I see it and this is how I got there.  You're wrong because of X".  Then the next person responds by saying "my thoughts on X are right because of Y", and so on down the train.  X and Y could be anything, and defending the branches we thought as we came to our conclusions, I think, will be more interesting than parroting someone else's thoughts.  One side-effect of this process is that the questioning might eventually rub an open nerve.  (I also think it might be interesting to periodically explore why the nerve itself is open)

Anyway, I would love for you to continue to contribute to this blog, but if you expect your values to be characterized as fundamental truths that are out of bounds, then it's not going to work.  You haven't talked about prop 8 yet, but expect me to ask you where the definition of marriage that you advocate comes from, and whether or not that's something that should be separate from the state.  Likewise, I expect you to challenge me: If I have a problem with single-issue voters, how come I don't have a problem w/ "Rock the Vote"?  

Anyway, moving forward, I really do want to get try and have deeper discussions even at the expense of brushing open nerves.  However we do it, though, let's just be honest.  If you think I've been brainwashed, say it.  Let's not say "Good sir, I do believe that your "daughter's" BMI is a tad high", and then act like we didn't just call someone's wife a slut and daughter fat.

Respect: A Warning

On the surface, the idea of starting a blog with four people of varying perspectives sounded like an interesting idea. Four men. Four lawyers. Four friends, devoted to a respectful yet impassioned debate, chronicling the political, social, and economic issues of the day. It sounded like a good idea.

What was I thinking?

These are tumultuous times. Such as they are, it was my fervent hope that we had moved beyond the petty squabbles, and that we might engage in a serious debate. However, it was no sooner than the inaugural post that we had devolved into the all-too-familiar scenario whereby motives are questioned, and sincerity is called into doubt, simply because of a different point of view.

Whether it be by insulting and demeaning those with whom one disagrees, by attacking the sincerity of those who are concerned about the size and scope of government, by mocking those who are consumers of commentary (of any stripe), or by attacking a religion that from art, to science, to education, to medicine, was in large part responsible for shaping what we now know as "Western Civilization," let this serve as a warning. It is unbecoming of a serious person, not to mention a forum that prides itself on welcoming divergent points of view, and I will have no part in it.

Just in case that isn't clear enough, let me try it one more time. If we cannot restrain ourselves from engaging in a childish display of rhetorical chess, I will gladly quit this forum. I work far too hard to justify spending the time banging my head into the wall.