Letter: Civility

Submitted by Aaron Arkin.

“Civility” is often described as “politeness”, the act of showing regard for others by being, for example, courteous.” It comes from the Latin word “civilis”, meaning relating to public life, and befitting a citizen. So civility means more than just “courteousness. In its more fulsome definition it describes social interactions in civic society in which participants maintain respect for one another and demonstrate respectful behavior toward one another even when they disagree.

From Civility in Everyday Life, “Civility doesn’t mean ignoring conflict, diversity, or difference of opinion. Rather, civility is the ‘how’ of citizenship. Civility is how we come together to discuss, debate, and creatively respond to our shared challenges. Civility is character in action. Civility is treating others with respect and care. The words we use matter. Civility is also the ability to listen intently to those who may not share your perspective. Civility in action requires us not only to be fair-minded but to show the courage to work with others toward the common good, despite our differences.”

I imagine a country might want to implement laws mandating civility; but no government could enforce them. Aside from the logistical problem, if enforcement was required, arguably the battle for civility would have already been lost. Thankfully, most of the time a baseline of civility is supported by good-enough child-rearing by parents and schools, and with luck, positive early experiences. But things can still go awry, witness whole societies that have fallen into hatred, internal division, and even genocide.

So, early indoctrination in civility, while necessary, is not sufficient. Leaders and public figures also have a continuing role to play, both by word and deed. When George Washington was asked what his title as President should be, his answer was, “Mr. President”; the “Mr” placing him squarely in the realm of the common man, both as an equal of his countrymen and equal in the eyes of the law: “character in action”, an example to all of civility.

When Abraham Lincoln, striving in his Second Inaugural Address to heal the wounds of the Civil War said, “With malice towards none, with charity for all”, he was asking the nation’s citizens to move past anger and division and listen to each other and their better selves: treating others with respect and care; again, civility.

But when leaders don’t adhere to the standards of civility, when they foment division and hatred of the “other”, appeal to our fears and denigrate those with whom they disagree, disseminate misinformation and sow doubt as to the truth, or encourage revenge against opponents, they set an example whereby even collective civility is in danger.

We live at a time when incivility has become political advantage: vilification of one’s political opponents has garnered much popular support and even been rewarded with large financial contributions. In that upside-down world, incivility is celebrated as a useful political strategy.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that a President has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers and is entitled to a presumption of immunity from prosecution for his official acts. Two competing concerns were at issue before the Court: whether a President has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken as President: or should a President be subject to the same laws as every other citizen.

Regardless of which of these arguments one thinks should be paramount, without civility neither position is really tenable. If civility no longer constrains behavior, then a President with absolute immunity for even only official acts could find a way to cast even the most heinous deed as an official act. Conversely, were the Supreme Court to have decided (as the Liberal Justices on the bench argued) that a President is subject to the same laws as every other citizen, political opponents without civility constraints could find ways to bring criminal charges against a President for any act, official or not, with which they disagreed.

Given the Supreme Court’s fraught decision, lower courts are now given the task of parsing presidential actions and deciding whether or not they constitute official acts: decisions which are likely to be inconsistent as well as delayed as these cases are litigated and appealed ad nauseam. This quagmire may not be avoided; but, going forward, if citizens reject incivility from their leaders and select politicians who support a return to civility, they may provide the guardrails necessary to prevent abuses both liberals and conservatives on the Court likely want to keep in check.

The choice is ours to make: as citizens, we are the stand-in for the safety net that, with luck, will keep us from descending into incivility.