Barack Obama Calls For Civility, But What Is It?

Earlier this month, while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama urged Americans,  particularly prayerful Americans, to strive for civility.

"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility."

"Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility."

"I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility."

In Mr. Obama's speech, he invoked "civil" or "civility" ten times. But what is civility? And what is the essential component that makes civility civil? Is civility nothing more than being kind, polite, well-mannered?

_________________________

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

Let me begin with negation. Civility is not courtesy. It is not good manners. It is not politeness. It is not a kind tone. It is not a strict adherence to protocol or deference to propriety. Of course, it feels like civility must contain all of these things, but it doesn't. If it does, however, these are only accidental. They are not essential.

Civil and civility derive from the Latin civilitas, which stems from civilis, which stems from civis, or "citizen." Civilis meant "relating to citizens" ("citizens" derived from civitas, the Latin word for "city").

I know, I know, this seems all rather academic, but there is a point, and that point is civility has not always meant courtesy or good manners. 

Here is how civility is currently defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

CIVILITY, n. formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

But this note in the same dictionary is important:

In early use the term denoted the state of being a citizen and hence good citizenship or orderly behavior. The sense [politeness] arose in the mid 16th century.

In other words, the current use of civility -- politeness -- is a rather recent one.

This foray into etymology is not frivolous. It is important to note that civility is not essentially about being polite, or, more aptly, civility is not about being "polished or made smooth" (which is the meaning of the Latin root for polite). It is really about something else. Kind tones, nice words -- these are not essential to civility at all, especially when one considers that civilization is really the result of civility: civility creates a civilization. It is essential to it.

But if civility is not essentially about politeness or courtesy, what is it?

Answer: Civility is the honorable use of truth. If society is a marketplace, then those who exchange truth in an honorable way, are civil. Truth is the most essential currency, not only in actual financial markets -- the whole idea of honest scales comes to mind -- but in the marketplace of ideas. Those who refuse to transact in truth are not civil, nor are they civilized.

_________________________

POLITENESS DOTH NOT A CIVILIZATION MAKE

One can easily imagine a world of incredible politeness that does not exchange in truth. Such a world, however, could never be civilized. We all have witnessed incredibly polite people tell nothing but lies; from childhood to old age, we can see that politeness can often be a form of abuse, being little more than the packaging of really damaging goods. And where there is abuse, and where there is the neglect of truth, civilization falters, struggles, and even decays. It is impossible to build or sustain a civilization without truth, just like it is impossible to build anything -- at least anything that lasts -- without a firm foundation composed of truth, of the truth of the laws of physics and the rules of engineering. Imagine a set of architect's instructions -- meticulously spoken with perfect syntax, grammar and politely offered warnings -- and yet his words are filled with half-truths and falsehoods. Imagine travel directions given that are sweetly spoken and yet completely wrong. A perfectly polite world without truth or respect for truth would indeed be one where chaos reigns.

And one can easily imagine a civilization that thrives that is not one whit polite. Imagine an architect offering advice whose speech is laced with profane, crude and abusive language, and yet he is utterly precise in his designs, designs obedient to the laws of physics. Things would get built, and they would stand erect against all forces. A civilization need not be built on courtesy. It may help, but courtesy is tangential at best to the great arch of truth that holds a civilization upright.

As long as any civilization is committed to the honorable use of truth, then that civilization will be civil in the truest sense.

_________________________

THE BIFURCATED TONGUE IS SMOOTH

So why bother with all this? Simple, really. I find Barack Obama utterly polite, and yet frequently given to marketing falsehoods. He is obviously a courteous politician, polished and politic. But even the devil is polite. Even Wormtongue was "civil." Even the serpent hisses courteously.

No, I am not suggesting Mr. Obama is a devil. My point is too refined for that sort of garish accusation. I am saying that we must be careful. I am saying that we must be diligent. I am saying that we must not be swayed by smooth speech, or even kind words -- from anyone. What matters is not the delivery or tone or cosmetics. What matters is how truth is handled. What matters is how facts are shared. What matters is civility -- the honorable use of truth.

_________________________

MR. OBAMA: HOW HIS FAITH INFORMS HIM

Here is an example of the sort of truth-less currency with which Mr. Obama transacts; the quote is lifted directly from his speech at the prayer breakfast; Mr. Obama began that speech with a promise that he would speak of how his faith informs his presidency:

"God's grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard.  It's expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world.  It's also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts.  By evangelicals at World Relief.  By the American Jewish World Service.  By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs.  By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose."†

This may seem utterly harmless; it may seem as innocuous and innocent as a child talking about fairies. But it isn't innocuous or harmless or innocent. It is grotesque. If it is not meant as deception and propaganda, then it is undeniably stupid. If it is propaganda, then it is an insult to all religions, and all atheists, and it is meant to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate. And what seems a mere sentimental passage in a forgettable speech is surely a celebration -- unwitting, perhaps, which thus confirms the charge of stupidity -- of Unitarian-Universalism, the creed-less church that attracts so many American liberals.

Pay attention! Just follow "God's grace." Look at what Mr. Obama claims expresses that grace: "God's grace ... it's expressed ... [b]y Americans of ... no faith." Imagine! Even the good actions of atheists are an act of God's grace. Moreover, God's grace is "expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces..." It is expressed in "Hindu temples." It is expressed through the Spanish government. But not only God's grace, but the "compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through ... Spain and other countries... ."

And, to top it all off, Barack Obama is celebrating that the religious and non-religious, all expressing God's grace, unite "around a common purpose, a higher purpose." Indeed, one wonders not only what he means, but whether Pope Benedict XVI knows anything about this "higher purpose."

In this speech on his faith, Mr. Obama declared "progress doesn't come when we demonize our opponents." I will spare readers the details of the times Mr. Obama has demonized his opponents; suffice it to say that when he makes such an exhortation he demonizes those who apparently demonize their opponents; he transcends such petty sins by sounding the noble call not to demonize, thus elevating himself, seeing himself as "above all that."

And he wraps up his speech with a quote from Martin Luther King: "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend." But such is simply not true: Truth can change an enemy into a friend (and some enemies become friends around a shared lie).

But what is most disturbing, perhaps, is this line that epitomizes Obama double-speak: "Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary." [emphasis mine]

In other words, calls for unity, civility, common ground: all vapid, empty. We can part ways -- "when necessary."

I began this essay on Wednesday. I did so in anticipation of Mr. Obama's healthcare "bi-partisan" summit, which is happening as I write this sentence. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama exchanges with his opponents the currency of truth; it will be interesting to see whether he demonizes his opponents using straw man fallacies, misrepresenting their views. And it will be interesting to see if he will find reasons to part ways, "when necessary."

Whatever happens, I am sure it will all be very polite.

___________________

†Let's examine this further. Mr. Obama seems to mean that God's grace is really some sort of Idealism, some 'spirit' that inheres in history: that history irresistibly flows towards a progressive end, and it is a shame to be on "the wrong side of history." Or, he is talking about pantheism, that "all" is God, and hence even the actions of an atheist are "God's grace." Or, he is conflating God with the will of the American people: what we will is God, and what we will is good (and spreads throughout all peoples). But these are all philosophically and theologically naive. Surely he cannot mean such things; surely he does not mean to supplant the dogmas of the earth's greatest religions with such bland pantheistic ideals. But if he does not mean them, or if he does not really understand what he is saying, what does this say about his intellectual capacities? And what if he REALLY does mean them? Do we not conclude that he is an intellectual child? And if he does not mean what he said, if he is merely reading words penned by a speechwriter, then is he not deceiving us, lying to us that this is how he feels, that this is how faith informs him as a man and as a president? In conclusion, we can only say that what he said is horrible, (and that he said it is horrible, too). 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.