A Small Defense of Civility

I found this blog post by Peter Wehner today. It has some great points, and says (better than I've been able to) what I think is currently missing from our public discourse.

It speaks directly to some of the criticisms I've heard voiced by my partisan friends: "Civility does not preclude spirited debate or confrontation. Clashing arguments are often clarifying arguments. Civility does not mean we do not call things by their rightful name. Evil is sometimes evil; and wicked men are sometimes wicked men. Nor does civility mean splitting the difference on every issue under the sun."

My favorite bit: "We can possess civility while at the same time holding (and championing) deep moral and philosophical commitments. In fact civility, properly understood, advances rigorous arguments, for a simple reason: it forecloses ad hominem attacks, which is the refuge of sloppy, undisciplined minds."

I discovered a great nugget of a quote in it as well: “Before impugning an opponent’s motives,” the philosopher Sidney Hook once said, “even when they may rightly be impugned, answer his arguments.”

Too often in the public sphere, we assume that all the arguments have already been uttered, all the cases already made. Surely, we reason, if the debate is over and the results conclusive, anyone who holds a view separate from ours must be craven or disingenuous or ignorant. But that is seldom the case. *We* may be convinced, but the world is a vast place filled with those who have not received our wisdom. If the conclusion is worth reaching, the case must be worth making - over and over again. And when our arguments are challenged - with good faith and reason - we must never shy away from answering in kind. The surest path to failure for those who hold a view is to grow tired of stating why they hold it.