On a recent episode of the New York Times’ podcast “The Daily,” host Michael Barbaro accompanied a Kamala Harris campaign worker as he knocked on the doors of undecided voters in Wisconsin.
Those who answered the door expressed a broad range of opinions, yet most remained skeptical of both candidates. One woman, identified only as Emily, conceded that while she does support some of Donald Trump’s policies, she views him as a divisive figure.
The regime has made it abundantly clear that civility is dependent on one thing: subservience. Only those who submit are to be treated fairly.
“His rhetoric has definitely had a huge part in the division of this country,” she told the New York Times, “that’s for sure.”
Is it? Are we really so certain that our inflamed political and cultural climate is mostly the fault of one man?
Passing the blame
The New York Times would likely say yes. Like its competitors, the paper has made the same point in more than a few articles published since 2016.
This explanation also no doubt appeals to Times readers, as it absolves them of any wrongdoing and places all the blame on Donald Trump, public enemy number one.
Emily is right about one thing: Most Americans do view our political differences as insurmountable. According to a Pew Research Center study published in June, only 18% of Americans believe any common ground exists between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of abortion. For immigration, the figure is 21%; for the economy, 32%. And these numbers represent a significant decline from January 2023.
But political disagreements are bound to arise in any country. What matters is how they are handled — and that’s where civility comes into play. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term as “politeness,” which is a start. But civility, especially within a political context, entails something much deeper: the ability to agree to disagree.
Disagreeing to disagree
By all appearances, Americans are losing that ability. The American Bar Association’s 2023 Survey of Civic Literacy found that 85% of Americans “believe civility is worse compared to ten years ago.” Respondents cited social media (29%), media in general (24%), and public officials (19%) as culprits. In other words, while politics is a factor, it is not the only one.
But within the realm of politics, what exactly is responsible for this decline of civility? Liberals are bound to point the finger at Trump, whose frankness certainly offends their politically correct sensibilities.
Their own rhetoric, however, is far from angelic; consider the vitriol directed at whites, Christians, men, and other groups deemed to be “oppressors” in recent years. There is clearly plenty of offensive speech to be found on both sides of the aisle.
Declaring war
What differentiates the two camps, however, is that the left is maniacally obsessed with demolishing the right. Censorship, deplatforming, lawfare, doxxing, shunning, firing — these are all arrows in the left’s quiver, arrows that are almost always only aimed at conservatives.
In response, some to the right of center have adopted a similarly combative approach to politics. It is not uncommon to see conservatives call for the cancellation of, say, teachers who promote radical gender ideology to children. Yet conservatives lack the requisite institutional power to match the left’s tactics — and it was the left that let this particular cat out of the bag in the first place.
By declaring war on Trump, liberal elites declared war on civility itself. You cannot in good faith weaponize the federal government and mainstream media against a president and his supporters and then turn around and blame them for an increasingly uncivil political climate. Yet that is precisely what they have done, and it is what they will surely continue to do.
The regime has made it abundantly clear that civility is dependent on one thing: subservience. Only those who submit are to be treated fairly. But lawfully challenge the regime through the electoral process, as Trump did, and you will invoke the wrath of our wonderfully impartial institutions.
Those in power have much to lose from a successful right-wing counterrevolution, so they have no intention of playing nicely. For them, everything is on the line.
As such, it should be clear that there will be no great rebirth of civility as long as the current status quo persists. Only peaceful regime change offers a path out of the madness.
