On March 2, 2007, Right Wing News asked 240 pundit bloggers in the US to respond to an 8 question survey.
63 responded.
1) Do you think the surge should go forward?
Yes (61) — 97%
No (2) — 3%2) Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?
Yes (53)– 84%
No (10) — 16%3) Do you believe that the wall on the border will ever actually be completed?
Yes (6) — 10%
No (56) — 90%4) Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?
Yes (0) — 0%
No (59) — 100%
Two more. You can read the full results and comments at Right Wing News.
7) If you were grading George Bush on his foreign policy for his presidency so far, would you give him an:
A or B (35) — 56%
C (18) — 29%
D, E, or F (10) — 16%
If you were grading George Bush on his domestic policy for his presidency so far, would you give him an:
A or B (17) — 27%
C (26) — 41%
D, E, or F (20) — 32%
Slacktivist looks at the results.
So the overwhelming majority — 84 percent — of right-wing bloggers are operating from a presumption of bad faith. And they’re proud of this.
This is staggering. Here is a group of people defiantly, enthusiastically rejecting the most basic and necessary starting point for civil discourse, for honest debate, for democracy.
Civility requires — that is, is impossible without — a presumption of charity. This is as fundamental to honest and meaningful conversation as the similar principle, the presumption of innocence, is to the legal system. Yet here are 84 percent of right-wing bloggers surveyed cheerily admitting that they view anyone who disagrees with them as guilty until proven innocent. Not just guilty, but treasonous, reprobate, evil.
This underscores why civility means so much more than politeness or decorum. Incivility of this degree renders conversation impossible. If you begin with the presumption that those you are talking to do not mean what they say then you have no basis for listening or responding to them. Their words, and the intent of those words, cannot be trusted. All that matters is their malevolent secret agenda, which of course they will deny because they are malicious liars.
I think those that identify on the left side of the US political isle should also be surveyed. Recently an informal survey of politically left blogs was taken, and while the bloggers survey methods are not up to academic snuff, he found people that lean left politically swear more. Vulgarity is a player in civility, swearing does tend to remove people from the debate, simply because different people from different cultures and age groups have different tolerance levels.
Graciousness and politeness can pack a big whallop, and do matter in a common space. Why does civility matter?
Civility has to do with citizenship, which is to say it has to do with responsibility. To speak as civilized people, as citizens, requires that we be responsible — to one another and to the truth (and the good, and the beautiful). It requires that we be responsible for our words, that we be willing to stand by them.
To be civilized — to live together — we need to be able to talk about the world we share. We need to be able to talk about art, politics, religion, economics, science and all the other vital components of our civilization and not just about our own feelings. This conversation doesn’t always have to be nice, but it has to be honest and it has to be responsible. That is what “civility” means.
The Evangelical Outpost calls for civility from political conservatives.
What do you have to say about civility, especially online. How do you respond to the presence or lack of it?
Published 1 year, 10 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Bene,
Civility isn’t necessarily essential, but it does help. In blog debates, sometimes things are said that wouldn’t be said face to face simply because of the medium used; there seems to be some sense of emboldening due to the ability to hide behind autonomy. Even if I give my name in a debate, chances are that people who physically know me will never read what I wrote on the web. That doesn’t even begin to mention the people who debate anonymously.
In the face of an agressive debater, all I can do is state my principals, and turn the other cheek, repeatedly. Some people have to win, at any cost. While not allowing them their supposed victory, I also won’t allow them to drag me into a mud-slinging debate. In the end, it is our choice to remain civil, despite what any opposing debater may say. You know, Bene, that there is absolutely no reason to get violent with words about any topic, and because there isn’t, I won’t tolerate incivility on my weblog.
On another note, I thought one of the questions asked by the right wing news was a good one that hit the issue head on. Although i am not a right winger, I would tend to agree that when it comes to the war in Iraq, many Democrats DO only use it as a political device, it’s clear in their repeated attempts at “non-binding” resolutions for this and that and the other thing. But I would also say that some Republicans are every bit as guilty of this.
We need to remember that in America ( and I assume this is true in other nations), the number one job of every elected politician is to re-elected. They won’t state that out loud, but you only have to look at their actions to see the truth of it.
With the federal budget in Canada coming out Monday, the media is abuzz with election talk.
We have a minority government without much wiggle room, their base won’t be pumped up for a summer election, nor is a coming up to Christmas election a good idea. A federal election runs 60 days here. We have a couple of provincial elections on the go. Voter fatigue and disinterest is a reality. The writ will be dropped when it is in the best interest of politicans from all parties to see it dropped.
Yep. Their job is to get re-elected. That realization serves every voter well.