Develop an understanding of the role of civility in dealing with individual and group differences.

While a healthy democracy does not require that every issue be debated and resolved in a cooperative manner, civic dialogue and discourse that is free from unnecessary conflict is an important indicator of a healthy political system. What kinds of conflict are unnecessary? Like beauty, the answer may be in the eye of the beholder. When it comes down to it, individuals are free to approach politics however they choose. They can be confrontational and difficult to work with, or they can be quick to work with others and seek out reasonable compromise. As noted earlier in this lesson, neither of these approaches is broadly considered to be the best approach to politics. Furthermore, laws and rules cannot force people to be either more cooperative or more confrontational. The First Amendment guarantees that people are free to express themselves, especially on matters of conscience, almost without limitation.

Can we promote healthier, more civilized, and less conflictual deliberation in our political process? If legal remedies are unavailable, what remains? The answer, again, lies in the hearts and minds of the people. Most voters will say that they believe politics has become too negative and confrontational. But if voters are swayed by negative campaign tactics, candidates will continue to employ them. If voters really want the tone of politics to change, they need to start by being less strident and confrontational themselves. Then they need to send the message to their elected officials that they expect the same from them. There is, in fact, no rule that requires candidates to be negative to be successful. Hundreds of politicians have adopted more civil approaches to politics. Consequently, they have been embraced by voters, and they have found success in the legislative process. If the level of civility in our politics is to improve, voters and political leaders alike need to continue to encourage such behavior.

Some such efforts are already under way. Dozens of political office holders and community leaders have taken stands and made public commitments to conducting themselves more civilly in their political discourse. This is one of the most promising approaches to promoting political civility. One group in particular, the non-denominational Interfaith Alliance, has established a standard for civility in political discourse and issued a challenge to political candidates and officeholders to uphold it. U.S. House and Senate candidates from twenty-five states signed the pledge in 2000 and 2001. Candidates who sign the pledge commit to:

• Present themselves and their ideas clearly without any attempt to mislead voters regarding their backgrounds, intentions, or motives.
• Welcome and participate willingly in events where issues can be discussed openly and candidly without resorting to “deception, half-truths, falsification, or innuendo” in describing one’s political opponents.
• Speak out forcefully against third parties who unfairly attack their political opponents, even if such an attack might benefit their own campaign efforts.
• Make sure they have documentation before making any factual claim about a political opponent’s record or background.
• Seek to raise the level of discourse in a campaign by focusing on issues and their detailed positions on them.
• Refrain from personal attacks, innuendo, demonizing or dehumanizing their opponents, or the use of “degrading, disparaging, or demeaning” descriptions or images of their political opponents.
• Accept full responsibility for the words and actions of all campaign staff, volunteers, and others who work on their behalf. Reject any efforts by their supporters that violate the principles outlined in this pledge.

(See http://www.civility.net for more details.)

By agreeing to and living by such standards, candidates, officeholders, and citizens alike can restore mutual respect and trust to the civic sphere.

If participants in political debates knew their facts better and focused on important issues and legitimate, relevant concerns about individual character, people would be more engaged and less cynical. The result would be a healthier, more vibrant political system. Just as in any interpersonal context, politics need not be characterized by conflict, bickering, and negativity. People can choose to talk about and make decisions about even complex and divisive issues in a spirit of consensus building and cooperation. Still, it cannot be a one-way street; individual voters, elected officials, and organizations across the political spectrum on every side of important issues must begin softening their approaches to political debate, or discourse will probably sink to the lowest common denominator. By refusing to reward those who take the low road, negativity can be discouraged and diminished in our political processes.