Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man’s bosom'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, December 6, 2010 11:19am - 7 Comments

Peter Wehner notes the difference between civility and weakness.

Civility is not a synonym for lack of principles or lack of passion. They are entirely separate categories. Civility has to do with basic good manners and courtesy, the respect we owe others as fellow citizens and fellow human beings. It is both an animating spirit and a mode of discourse. It establishes limits so we don’t treat opponents as enemies. And it helps inoculate us against one of the unrelenting temptations in politics (and in life more broadly), which is to demonize and dehumanize those who hold views different from our own.

Bookmark and Share
  • gottabesaid

    Nice sentiment… although in today's political climate, the belief that 'nice guys finish last' holds sway. Sad, really.

  • Emily

    It's amazing that grown adults need to be told this…but then there's QP.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Thanks for posting this, Wherry.

    Anyone who participates in political discourse, from politicians to blog commenters, would do well to read Peter Wehner's short essay.

  • pdpd

    This interest in civility is really important. But the problem with the analysis is that "civility" discourse needs coercive sanctions, to be sociologically effective, as that's what makes the short-term restraint pay off over the long term. I.E. people who shout and swear about politics at dinner parties are marginalized and not invited back. But people who shout and swear about politics in QP are not disciplined at all, and might even be rewarded for the behavior.

    So this creates a difficult problem, both for analysis and for tangible progress. We get brilliant guys like Kingwell and Wehner telling us to embrace civility, as it's great for democratic society, when empirically the analysis is moot, as it actually isn't normatively expected to behave well in QP anymore. I mean, Pierre Poilievre's mother isn't calling him every night, freaking out about what the neighbours will say. The redlines for behavior are now basically to a)not engage in Taiwanese-style parliamentary fistfights, and b)not to call people a specific list of insults.

    • John D

      Maybe the speaker should be able to fine parties based on their members' behaviour, NHL-style.

  • madeyoulook

    And it helps inoculate us against one of the unrelenting temptations in politics (and in life more broadly), which is to demonize and dehumanize those who hold views different from our own.

    Until it gets proven, over and over, sadly, that just the right amount of "going negative" actually gets results. So, um, good luck with that inoculation thing.

  • DianeG

    Might as well write to Santa.

From Macleans