Is Civility Our Greatest Need?

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, much of the conversation has been about civility. I was just watching CNN as Wolf Blitzer interviewed Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona. The sheriff was asserting that the caustic atmosphere created by people making caustic political comments contributed to making Jared Loughner go out at shoot a congresswoman and a number of other people. Pressured by Blitzer, he admitted he had no hard evidence but said that’s his opinion as a veteran of law enforcement, I believe 43 years.

Personally I get a bit nervous when someone can’t present any evidence or logic, and yet they cite their opinion based on experience. I think that if experience teaches you something you ought to be able to express it. Of course, it may be that Sheriff Dupnik is correct. The problem is that we don’t actually know that.

Now considering that I regard civility as extremely important, why do I think this is important? Why don’t I just rejoice that people are focusing on civility as a result of this event? The reason is simple–accuracy.

I recall listening to a hearing some years ago in which a candidate for Surgeon General was being questioned by a senate committe working on his confirmation. One of his claims to fame was a particular program to prevent teen pregnancy. One of the conservative senators asked the candidate whether the evidence showed that this program had actually prevented teen pregnancies and how many. When it came time for Senator Edward Kennedy to question the candidate he expressed dismay at that question. I was left to wonder just why it was wrong to ask for evidence of the success of a program.

Now as I recall I liked the candidate in question, and I felt some of the questioning from conservative senators was less gracious that it should have been. Yet that was a question for which I would have liked an answer. Why? Again–accuracy. We need to know what government programs are actually accomplishing.

And this remains my concern about the calls for civility. Yes, civility is necessary, but so is accuracy. Let’s say two candidates, A & B, produce negative ads. Given the state of political advertising, it’s highly likely that both sets of ads are inaccurate, but that’s another matter. Few people care about the accuracy of positive ads. There will be a certain amount of voter negative response because both candidates have
“gone negative.” But evidence shows that some of the mud will stick, so candidates get value from negative ads.

But are both candidates A & B wrong for going negative? Let’s suppose that candidate A knows something about candidate B that actually calls B’s suitability for office into question. Should A not let voters know about this? I would say that A should let people know, though he should do it accurately. Thus when candidates “go negative,” my first response is to ask two questions: 1) Is the negative information true? and 2) Is the negative information relevant? In a voting decision I’d also ask whether A has enough positives, but I ask that regarding any candidate.

The problem, as I see it, is that we give equal weight to information being negative without first inquiring as to whether it is accurate. There are candidates who are unqualified for office. There are candidates who are morally unsuitable. If that is the case, we should be able to discuss it. I would prefer this be done by energetic and accurate media, but absent such journalism, I have no problem with the candidates doing so.

Doubtless we will disagree as to what is a valid criticism and what is not, but again, that is the nature of political debate. In addition, I think we should do our best to present such accusations in the most civil, careful, and accurate manner possible.

Yes, I think civility is important, but if we took more care with accuracy, I think much civility would be restored. Thus I think accuracy is a more important goal.