It’s been nearly two years since I’ve posted anything here. Law school will do that to you. Given recent developments, now seems like as good a time as any. Accordingly, I’ve been asked to share some words from a friend.
There aren’t many things we can agree on, as a country, but in spite of recent dialogue, the value of “incivility” as a political tool is one of them. We might not all say it out loud, but we all agree on it on some level.
Marco Rubio may decry the coarsening of our politics, but he’ll also hand wave away attacks on the media because, hey, the people who vote for him don’t like the media either. Republicans may tut-tut President Trump’s most egregious statements – “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Paul Ryan famously said! – but that doesn’t mean they can’t see the value in having Trump around.
In the more charitable reading, they see Trump’s “incivility” as something they have to put up with to get tax breaks for the wealthy; in the least charitable reading, his “incivility” is a tool that broadens the range of acceptable social views and makes their own extreme ones seem within the mainstream by comparison. I won’t make a judgment on which is true.
On the ground level, Republicans have never really had a problem with “incivility,” either. When anti-abortion activists protest outside of abortion providers, is there any difference between that and what Maxine Waters called for over the weekend that led to so much handwringing? There is just one I can think of: Waters called for targeting public figures, not private citizens.
Even without making that distinction, however, we’ve simply never been forced to sit through a national discussion about whether these protestors are coarsening our national dialogue, are inciting violence, or otherwise threatening western civilization somehow. And, remember, this is protest in response to legal actions – regardless of where you perceive them to fall on your personal moral spectrum, an important distinction.
The reason for that is clear: It’s not about the necessity of civility within a functioning society. It’s about which views are abhorrent enough to do away with the typical rules that govern most interactions within that society. I doubt anyone criticizing the Red Hen would object if they kicked out a patron who launched into a racist tirade in the middle of the restaurant. I doubt anyone would blink if a group of customers decided to heckle that person, either.
Because we’ve (mostly) agreed that this form of racism doesn’t belong in polite society. Anti-abortion activists and their supporters have mostly agreed that abortion is such an urgent moral calamity that it deserves setting aside the rules that typically govern our society.
These are well established norms. And, if they aren’t universally agreed on, they are at least uncontroversial enough that we’re never subjected to the kinds of hand wringing that resulted from Sarah Huckabee Sanders getting a free cheese plate for her trouble of having to find a new place to eat dinner one time.
The debate, then, isn’t about whether incivility is or should be an effective tool for shunning specific views. By and large, that debate is settled; the answer is a near-unanimous “yes.” The debate, then, is about whether the Trump administration’s actions and espoused views should fall outside the realm of what is accepted in modern society.
And, we don’t have to be vague about this: Nobody that I know of believes lowering the marginal tax rate on income over $500,000 from 39.6 to 37.0 percent for individuals means Mike Mulvaney shouldn’t be able to enjoy a quiet night on the town. As harmful as the tax plan will likely be, it doesn’t represent the kind of existential threat other Trump administration policies do.
What happened to Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen last week was a specific response to a specific policy. Namely, a policy that sought to separate children from parents seeking asylum at the border for the purpose of serving as a deterrent to future asylum seekers. We need not be vague about this. It is an obviously cruel policy, one that is obviously designed to inflict maximum cruelty, in order to show potential future asylum seekers they aren’t welcome as a matter of policy.
If you think that is a reasonable policy position to adopt, by all means, defend it. I won’t respect your sense of morality, but I can at least respect a certain intellectual consistency.
What I can’t respect is acknowledging the policy for what it is – needlessly cruel, and specifically designed to inflict maximum cruelty – and yet arguing that it doesn’t deserve to be met with whatever tools are available in opposition. Yes, up to and including making life slightly uncomfortable for the people inflicting that cruelty. We can’t vote these people out of office — yet – but we can make Sarah Huckabee Sanders have to wait a half-an-hour extra to find a new spot for dinner.
Some laws and policies don’t deserve to be met with polite disagreement. Remember, we have already agreed on this.
The actions the Trump administration are taking are either within the bounds of what is acceptable by polite society, or they are not. That’s the debate. That’s the question. That’s all this is about. Let’s put aside concern trolling about civility and debate that.