Political Civility

Abstract

<jats:p>The articles in this symposium are peppered with numerous recent incidents of political incivility ranging from physical scuffles at town hall meetings to the now-infamous accusation shouted at president Barack Obama during a nationally televised address before a joint session of Congress. Name calling and ad hominem attacks that were once associated with talk radio and cable television pundits have made their way into the halls of governing institutions, which no longer serve as sacred spaces one-step removed from bare-knuckled politics. Indeed, divisive views have even made inroads into “safe” topics for discussion—the weather and sports. Forget the intensity of debate over climate change. Democrats were actually 10% more likely to claim that the 2012 winter season was warmer than were their Republicans counterparts (Newport 2012). Sports no longer offers a neutral conversation starter, as 27% of Republicans view Tim Tebow as their favorite quarterback compared to only 9% of Democrats (Public Policy Polling 2011). Vitriol, combined with legislative gridlock and the uproar of protestors—not only in Washington, DC, but also in state capitals and prominent cities across the country—has shifted our discipline's attention to the role of political civility in sustaining a healthy democracy.</jats:p>

Is Context the Key? The (Non-)Differential Effects of Mediated Incivility in Three European Countries

“…This means that, even though research has shown that British citizens are routinely exposed to increased levels of conflict in politics and media and uncivil elite discourse is also prevalent in the British parliament (Muddiman, 2018), they perceived incivility in a similar way as their Dutch and Spanish European neighbors. Up until know it was rather an implicit assumption that perceptions of incivility being strongly dependent on social norms, differ with country context (Strachan & Wolf, 2012). Following our results, it could be the case that some, if not most, forms of incivility are not dependent on country-context but rather unacceptable everywhere.…”

How Moral Value Commitments Shape Responses to Political Civility and Incivility

“…It accomplishes this by promoting “positive face”—the assurance that one is respected and valued—and “negative face”—the assurance that one will not be forced to do anything against one’s wishes (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In the realm of politics, civility and politeness, “sustain social harmony and allow people who disagree with one another to maintain ongoing relationships” (Strachan & Wolf, 2012, p. 402). The recognition that civility and politeness are essential to the smooth functioning of our political institutions has given rise to certain norms of behavior that shape how elected officials interact with one another.…”

Rousing the Partisan Combatant: Elite Incivility, Anger, and Antideliberative Attitudes

“…Donald Trump’s victory and subsequent tweeting habits as president have only increased attention to the uncivil digital communication of elites and the effect it has on the partisan impulses of the mass public (e.g., Nithyanand, Schaffner, & Gill, ; Wayne, ). Of particular interest is its power to rouse partisan sentiments at the expense of deliberative attitudes: Scholars, journalists and elected officials have all argued that elite incivility primes citizens for partisan combat, while reducing their commitment to compromise and bipartisanship (e.g., Jamieson & Hardy, ; Meltzer, ; Strachan & Wolf, ). Yet, despite the popularity of this claim, the empirical record demonstrating a relationship between elite incivility and partisan, antideliberative attitudes is surprisingly limited.…”