Civility? Some Practical Suggestions

Commentary

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, perhaps the most common plea has been for there to be more civility in the political realm henceforth. Amen; may it be so. But how does that “civility” look in practice? What actual changes can be envisioned and hoped for?

Here are a few concrete suggestions:

Stop using the word “divisive.” There was a TV commentator who got canned for branding Kirk as “divisive” and so, by implication, brought violence down upon himself. But “divisive” was just a lazy way of saying that Kirk dared to differ from the progressive orthodoxy that prevails at that particular network. In a democracy, there are lots of different beliefs and opinions. Saying that it’s the other guy who is divisive is arrogant. It’s like saying, “I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me deserves no respect.”

Stop using the word “fascism.” That term long ago ceased to have any objective lexicographical definition. It has degenerated into the political “f-word”—a lazy person’s insult meant to damn someone with whom he disagrees. In the Kirk case, the person who killed him practiced censorship by murder. That has far more in common with the historical sense of “fascism” than anything Kirk ever said or did.

Stop using the label “right-wing”—or at least use it far more sparingly. The problem here is that, like fascism, right-wing has become a pejorative epithet rather than a word with an objective meaning. Probably half of Americans share key beliefs with Kirk—a respect for innocent life, the belief that democracy requires dialogue to air out and debate differences, and the concern that big government suppresses liberty and impairs prosperity. At least one mainstream media newspaper reporting on the Kirk assassination referred to Kirk as “right-wing.” Not so. Conservative, yes; right-wing, no. “Right-wing” connotes both violent and extremist, and that simply isn’t true about either Kirk or the majority of the American population that shares his values. Call the millions of us who share many of Kirk’s beliefs “old-fashioned” or “traditionalists” or “retro,” if you like, but “right-wing”? That is nothing but vicious slander.

Another area ripe for change is our colleges and universities. Some of these are coming under fire from the Trump administration for the lopsided ideological profiles of their faculty. Indeed, the discrimination that keeps conservatives off of college faculties and campuses is, in many cases, extreme. One personal example: In 2016, I received a grant to deliver a guest lecture on equality and inequality at college campuses in or adjacent to Pennsylvania, where I was teaching. I gave nine such lectures, pointing out that much economic inequality was both natural and benign. The lecture was given respectfully and received respectfully. Sadly, however, there was one college that slammed the door in my face on purely ideological grounds. It happened to be the college in the town where I lived—a college where my wife had been a much-loved theater director for nine years and where I myself had successfully taught several classes as an adjunct to the Business/Econ Department. In spite of past contributions to the college, they considered me and all conservatives persona non grata.

The ideological sterilization of our colleges is sad, especially because there are several logical reasons why ideological diversity is helpful. If nothing else, exposure to a variety of ideological orientations will better prepare students for the real world, where those differences are ubiquitous. Think of the potential for strengthening students’ intellectual development. By coming into contact with—and perhaps crossing swords with—professors of various belief systems, students will be forced to grapple with a greater variety of ideas. This would impel them to grapple with and clarify their own beliefs, enabling them to more successfully cope with the ideological diversity that exists outside the academy. Who knows? They might even learn to like some of the people who are currently blocked from their campuses. So c’mon, colleges, implement true diversity—a variety of opinions and belief systems—by ideologically integrating your schools. And while you are at it, do away with those obnoxious “safe spaces.” All they do is cripple the ability of students to engage and cope with reality more maturely and effectively by shielding them from it.

When college administrators and faculties exclude professors and guest speakers on ideological grounds, it suggests a lack of confidence in the power of their own ideas to withstand intelligent challenges. It betrays a fear that the only way they can win a debate of ideas is to suppress the messages of the other side. They worry that if students are exposed to well-developed arguments on the other side of the ideological divide, students may actually develop the ability to think and come to conclusions other than what they themselves embrace.

Another welcome change would be if members of Congress would simply explain in a calm, rational manner why their proposals are needed without verbally ripping to shreds anyone who has a different idea. Conservatives and Republicans would contribute to a healthier polity if they were to avoid harsh personal attacks.

The same holds true for whoever is president. I have long wished that President Donald Trump would refrain from harshly personal attacks, but that isn’t his style. And considering that his opponents have used slander, lawfare, and impeachments (not to mention assassination plots) against him and that he stated flatly at Kirk’s memorial service that he can’t forgive those opponents, I’m reluctantly concluding that he won’t soften his tone. That being said, going forward, the need is for Americans on the political right to unite with Americans on the left to speak with respect—or at least with some restraint—about their opponents. If we collectively can practice the old axiom about hating the sin but loving the sinner, then we can restore civility to our body politic.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.