On a basic level, I believe that how people feel manifests into physical reality. An obvious example is when someone commits murder. A happy person with a positive outlook doesn’t want to kill someone. Another example is war, which is the ultimate expression of negative feelings manifesting into physical reality. Since war is also a political expression, it can be seen as the nexus between negative feelings and political expression, which is why I’ve always been against phraseology that co-opts the word “war” for policy prescriptions, like “The War on Drugs,” “The War on Poverty,” etc. Why use such a negative word to characterize policy?
Civility means being polite. In the context of politics, civility is important because it allows people with different views on a particular subject to communicate with each other in a way that avoids generating negative feelings toward each other. This in turn allows for the communication to focus on policy questions as opposed to personal considerations. Civility is also important in the context of voicing opposition to a particular policy; AKA to “protest.” Civility is the difference between a peaceful protest and a riot. Some would point to the fact that armed insurrection or revolution, which is of course a form of protest, has resulted in change. Examples include the Bolshevik revolution, the French revolution, and of course, the American revolution. However, there are two great examples that demonstrate profound change can occur using civility: Ghandi’s non-violent protest against the British colonization of India, and Martin Luther King’s non-violent protest for civil rights reform.
All this may seem naive to some readers, especially these days when things get so personal on various media. I prefer to think of civility not as naive, but as a lost art. Thanks for reading about my politics and for waiting awhile for the second post. A friend commented that it took so long he thought the first post was satire.
michaelkrich 