I’ve been tempted for some time to challenge Ann Althouse’s “civility bullshit” argument, which she has proclaimed for years and even has a tag on her blog for it. Her claim that civility is bullshit is bullshit, and obviously so: she runs a civil blog, and if she really thought civility was bullshit, she wouldn’t. Today she used her argument again, this time in the fisking of a rationalization-filled Karen Tumulty defense of Neera Tanden in the Washington Post. Althouse writes,
I’ve been writing under the tag “civility bullshit” for years. It represents my longstanding opinion that calls for civility are always bullshit. Certainly in the area of politics, calls for civility always come out when the incivility is hurting your people. When somebody is deploying incivility effectively for your side, you hold your tongue and enjoy the damage.
That’s a shockingly bad argument for a lawyer, never mind a law professor. Saying that many people cynically use complaints about civility to silence dissent doesn’t mean that civility itself is an invalid value. One could say the same about lying, or adultery. Althouse is complaining about hypocrisy.
Furthermore, I don’t comprehend how anyone could have observed the last four years and not admit that civility is crucial. That was at the core of my warning in 2015 that electing a President like Donald Trump would turn the country into a nation of assholes. The President is always a powerful role model, and it was clear that a President Trump, given his habits and proclivities (and lack of self-control), would do terrible harm to civility in American society, and as the many follow-up pieces here track, he did.
Civility is not only a component of the second of the Josephson Institute’s Six Pillars of Character, but in my view the keystone of the value. This is why it is listed first among those components, which are Civility, Courtesy, Decency, Dignity, Tolerance, Acceptance and Autonomy. As I have told my seminar classes for decades, civility is a Golden Rule value, an example of treating others as you would want to be treated. It signals formal respect, even when the respect is formal only, and thus helps allow systems like the family, organizations the government, and society to function. Showing disrespect to my parents or adults as a child meant guaranteed punishment. An employee who demonstrated disrespect by being uncivil to me was risking dismissal. (I once stunned a production of a play when I fired a back-talking cast member on the spot when he addressed me in an uncivil tone during a final dress rehearsal.) The consistently uncivil rhetoric directed at President Trump harmed his ability to lead the nation and damaged American traditions and institutions. Speaker Pelosi’s despicable tearing up of the State of the Union address was an all-time low in American politics, perhaps equaled by a member of “The Squad” who repeatedly said that the party should “impeach the motherfucker” without being disciplined. A Republican member of Congress who used such words regarding President Obama would have, and should have, been censored.
The post in which Althouse repeats her pet grievance accurately attacks a Post column headlined, “The people concerned about Neera Tanden’s incivility sure didn’t seem to mind the Trump era’s.” Tumulty has long been one of D.C. journalism’s dimmer talking heads, but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and presume the headline wasn’t her doing. Could there be a more obvious invitation to the accusation of “Whataboutism”? Conduct is wrong, or it isn’t: the fact that an individual might have tolerated similar wrongful conduct in the past may eliminate them as a credible critic, but it doesn’t change the wrongfulness of the conduct at issue, or alter its harm. Needen is nominated for the leadership of an important agency that must be trusted by both parties. She disqualified herself by stupidly tweeting insults to various Republican law-makers, and President Trump’s uncivil ways have nothing to do with it. Moreover “the people concerned with Neera Tanden’s inciviity” DID “mind ” both his obnoxious rhetoric and that of the AUC (the Axis of Unethical Conduct–“the resistance/Democrats/ and the news media) toward him, which, incidentally, and I kept score, was more uncivil.
“But let’s consider the Neera Tanden problem. Her incivility is in the past. People on her side enjoyed the damage she inflicted at the time and I don’t think any of her people tried to pull her back with calls for civility. It’s just that now she’s Biden’s nominee to head the Office of Management and the Budget, and the old incivility makes her seem like too much of a political hack to be trusted in that position. Nobody bellyaches about incivility when it’s working as a weapon for their side, and the charge of incivility is another political weapon, whipped out when the other side is landing incivility punches on you.”
…which still doesn’t mean that the accusation of incivility is “bullshit.” It isn’t as if Democrats didn’t endorse Tanden’s bile then and are rejecting it now. One Democratic Senator is saying now that it was disqualifying, and how does Althouse know he didn’t feel that way about her tweets all along? She is right that Tumulty’s reasoning is terrible, like this section:
Manchin, after all, voted in 2018 to confirm Richard Grenell as ambassador to Germany. He was apparently unconcerned — as were 55 of his Senate colleagues — with the diplomatic skills of a social media troll who in the past had tweeted that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “is starting to look like Madeleine Albright” and that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow should “take a breath and put on a necklace.” Grenell’s social media lowlights also included mocking the hairstyle of Callista Gingrich, who was later named Trump’s ambassador to the Vatican.
Althouse reacts, “A nominee for Ambassador to Germany said a few things about how women look. Is that it?” I wouldn’t have voted for Grenell, but the point is that his nasty comments about those women are neither indicators that he couldn’t to the largely ceremonial job of Ambassador to Germany or relevant to Tanden’s situation, for she insulted, repeatedly, the very law-makers she would have to work with. Had Grennell; made his nasty comments about the Chacellor of Germany, I think its a safe bet that he would not have been confirmed…or even nominated.
The truly asinine Tumulty op-ed ends with,
[G]iven the general climate on social media, Republicans would do well to worry what might happen to a GOP president’s nominees in the future. If senators really want to usher in a new standard of civility, the first thing they might want to consider is whether it should begin with forgiveness.
What is that, an “Everybody does it” argument? Forgiving misconduct doesn’t mean pretending it didn’t happen. If the idea is to return to civility, then the approach has to include making public incivility have substantive negative consequences. Tanden said she was sorry (in a dubious apology), and it’s fine to forgive her, but her words were her words. Forgiving someone doesn’t mean you trust them, or should (I have a lot of experience on that topic). Congress should tell Tanden that when and if she proves by her conduct going forward that she can be an advocate without insulting those with whom she disagrees, then she might be a viable budget director.
Because incivility is not bullshit.