Your story reinforces an idea I've been having. I suggest a rule that we could all use to keep things civil:
I believe we all need to think of people we would really like to have involved in town governance, people we would like to "recruit" -- smart, practical, with useful skills and important viewpoints. I believe we can all think of people like that, who won't join the process because it is currently so "hot". I believe that any time we speak out publicly, we need to think of ourselves as speaking to that person, even if we are not. That way, we would set a tone that would create an environment that would truly be inviting to a broader range of candidates (with all kudos going out to the people who are currently participating in spite of the heat).
I have several friends in my current stage of life -- launching careers, raising little kids, who can't really dive in yet. But I know that they would be great, if we can create a setting that they see as workable without wearing armor to meetings!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A rule to live by
Rich Morse was kind enough to write in with a rather encouraging story. His story stimulated my thinking about what would be a rule to guide our behavior in creating a better environment...this is what I said (read comments below on "Late Breaking Sad News for whole conversation):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that all this talk about civility, tone, divisiveness, etc. is simply an attempt to control and restrict the debate, which I find strange coming from residents who know very well the long-term value of dissent and argument.
Politics is not beanbag; it's not sports. We need a robust, spirited, vigorous debate on the future of the town, and if people get passionate about it, so be it. If we can find ways to come together, that's great. But wasting time critiquing the tone and appropriateness of individual remarks sucks all the life out of what is a very important debate on the substance.
We are recruiting more candidates than we are scaring away by having good, vigorous, tough debate on town issues.
I'm a free speech guy: Vagina Monologues, West Side Story, the public display of political messages on T-shirts, the occasional disrespectful comment to an elected leader--I say let it all in!
There is definitely a difference in interpretation going on here. Keeping things civil is not restricting debate, though it may be controlling it. Which is Ian's prerogative. I don't believe Ian is trying to eliminate dissent, disagreement, or argument. He is trying to eliminate name-calling, insults, mud-slinging, and other non-useful behavior. As our grandfather used to say (ooops, forgot about disclosure. I'm Ian's brother) "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem." If anyone reading this disagrees, that's what we're trying to learn about.
But what I'm looking for, and I believe Ian is too (but I'm not trying to speak for him), is the REASON. Not the name that you want to call that person because of his or her beliefs. That's not restricting debate. That is asking people to be courteous, polite, and decent. I know some people think that no argument worth its salt can be civil all the time. I disagree. Tone is quite important in all conversation, especially electronic forms where there is a complete lack of body language. If you spend any time in any Quaker meetings for business, for example, you will see that tone is a large part of it. Even in our governmental structure there are rules about decorum.
Is the disrespectful comment Mr. Morse referring to (even hypothetically) constructive criticism, or is it simply disrespectful? If you want a place where the debate looks more like a wrestling match, that will be on a different website.
Rich-
I believe that expectations for conduct apply to more than "beanbag" and "sports". Don't areas such as government, education, and the courts deserve expectations for good behavior?
While I don't expect us all to behave like churchmice, I believe that group decision making works best when people attempt to combine passions with respect. I have no trouble with passion, tshirts, or the vagina monologues, either. I'm not suggesting that we throw people out of town for making occasional disrespectful comments to another person. I am saying that when people publish lasting documents that soundly criticize hard working members of the discussion, that the authors should clearly define the terms by which they offer that criticism. You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument.
I also don't believe that publicly suggesting a rule of thumb which people can apply to their own behavior can fairly be called "simply an attempt to control and restrict the debate". There is nothing of substance that can be said disrespectfully that cannot be said respectfully. I'm not saying we must all be perfect. I'm saying we could all do better than we are currently.
I share your enthusiasm for free speech. I also learned in high school that it is not acceptable to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Perhaps we differ on where best to draw the line between those two poles.
Your cynicism is not convincing.
Post a Comment