The Ending Civility Crisis

Cornell Clayton claims in his article Understanding the Civility Crisis

that there has been a consistent pattern of disrespectful attitudes and rowdiness in election campaigns (1).

The author observes that the media seems to applaud unusual conduct

and even goes so far as to make the participants popular. Clayton continues by citing Joe Wilson, who yelled "you liar" after President Barack Obama's presidential address. The author observes a high level of public indecency, which can never be tolerated. The author emphasizes that authority must be valued and that the people must consider their boundaries when approaching their officials. The article highlights the various instances of incivility which may go unnoticed in some areas. Clayton, therefore, concludes that civility is defined by different standards, but there should, however, be a common way of establishing the right behavior (1).

This essay seeks to evaluate whether there is an incivility crisis and its negative impact.

The essay will also check how leaders can enhance civility in public forums and a counter argument on the same topic.

Clayton notes that incivility is quite common in the United States

and the public seems to have the freedom to express their concerns about the efficiency of every president (1). For instance, the article highlights a case where the public demonstrated because President Bush had invaded Iraq. The leaders also fail to conduct themselves with decorum thus making the public view them negatively (Brooks, Jordan, and Geer 6). Clayton mentions the incidence involving Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton which further lowered the respect the public had for the president (Clayton 1). Indeed, for the public to grant the leaders respect, they must be willing to hold a high level of professionalism. The public closely monitors the leader’s personal lives, and this is in turn reflected in the way they perceive them. However, it has over time become apparent that the public love associating them with drama. It is possible that the voters would choose a rude leader as opposed to a calm one with real and objective agendas. The problem, therefore, lies with the public since it makes the ultimate decision.

The public never seems to learn from their previous mistakes

and hence keep on choosing leaders that they later disagree with (Clayton 1). President Trump was severally seen hurling expletives in public and showing total disregard for the women, but Americans still chose him. As a candidate, President Trump threatened to take away jobs from the illegal immigrants and even build a war to prevent Mexicans from accessing the country. Americans chose president Trump despite constant threats that he would freeze health insurance, social welfare and even deport the immigrants. The public was rather too late to act, and that happens when the leader has already been sworn it as the president. There have been several campaigns against the presidency with the public feeling that President Trump has bad policies. The same people, however, voted in the president and hence should learn to deal with their choices.

Clayton is quick to conclude that most presidential debates are marked with shouting matches from the participants (1).

It is hence not surprising that the public would naturally follow through and offer little respect to the elected leaders (Robin, Conway, and Danielson 534). The leaders lack common courtesy during debates and often time some of the candidates want to hog the conversation thus making it hard for the rest to voice their opinions. The public outburst can be dated back to 1800 where supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson printed despicable images of the opponents indicating lies about them (Clayton 1). The primary objective of the political campaigns is to taint the profile of the competitors thus giving the other parties leverage. Here have also been instances of leaders been physically assaulted after passing policies that do not favor the public. For example, in 1865, Senator Charles Summer was attacked on the Senate floor for giving a speech against the fugitive slave act. The state should strive to protect its leaders from themselves and the public (Gervais 170). Once a leader is respected, he will be able to conduct his job well and also allow the public to state their opinion maturely.

According to Clayton, incivility curtails democracy (1).

The author notes that the people in legislative seats are justified in voicing their opinions amongst themselves, but this prevents the ordinary person from raising their issue. For instance, he recounts an episode in 1836 where fanny Wright spoke in Tammy Hall (Clayton 1). At that time, women were not allowed near political and public actions, and men hence had the sole mandate for making decisions for everyone. The marginalization had stretched to the black Americans, gay Americans and even labor organizers who also sought for a platform where they would voice their opinions. When the people feel that they are being sidelined, they are likely to cause chaos, and this means that incivility will continue to rule (Brooks, et al., 4). There is a need, therefore, to give equal chances to people to promote democracy and peace within a nation.

Counter Argument

Incivility may never end because it is ingrained in people’s character. It is clear that civility does not solve a majority of people’s problems. Coloroso (1) contends that talks between the public and the government officials are full of incivility because the leaders are for their selfish needs and not that of the people who chose them. The public, therefore, has no incentive to change because they are used to being violent to have their way (Coloroso 2). The political leaders do not seem to be serious about issues raised in a decent way and only act fast when there is a threat of violence (Gervais 3). The problem of incivility may therefore not end as long as the leaders remain with their violent mentality. The leaders also tend to condone the rude behavior from the public, and it had thus become a trend.

Conclusion

Indeed uncivilly stalls the progress of any nation because it hinders the public and the leaders from agreeing on how they can improve the society. Countries that encourage communication and contribution from the public have progressed significantly. A leader ought to conduct himself with decorum so that the public can accord him the respect he deserves while still in power. It is also important for the public to weigh their options before voting in their leaders to ensure they make the right choice of leaders they respect. The public forums should be well moderated to promote decency and the faith the public has on the leaders. Incivility, therefore, does not have to be there in political campaigns and public forums and should hence be avoided to promote justice and democracy.

Works Cited

Brooks, Deborah Jordan, and John G. Geer. "Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate." American Journal of Political Science 51.1 (2007): 1-16.

Clayton, Cornell. "Understanding The “Civility Crisis” :: Winter 2010 :: Washington State Magazine". Wsm.wsu.edu. N.p., 2017. Web. 28 Apr. 2017.

Coloroso, Christina. "Political Incivility: Fleeting Trend or Enduring American Tradition?." The Georgetown Public Policy Review Online 12 (2009).

Gervais, Bryan T. "More than Mimicry? The Role of Anger in Uncivil Reactions to Elite Political Incivility." International Journal of Public Opinion Research (2016): edw010.

Gervais, Bryan T. "Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 12.2 (2015): 167-185.

Stryker, Robin, Bethany Anne Conway, and J. Taylor Danielson. "What is political incivility?." Communication Monographs 83.4 (2016): 535-556.