Incivility-in-Chief

During an election cycle of personal attacks, divisive rhetoric, and uninformed discourse, the remarks of presidential candidates have ignited public debate on responsible speech and the coexistence of civility and free speech.

Civility can bridge ideological divides. Consider the friendship of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Though their views on most issues fell at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, mutual respect and understanding enabled them to engage in constructive disagreement.

Our republic is built upon the notion of a free and equal exchange of ideas, and our political leaders must provide models of civil discourse to which American citizens can aspire. As we move forward into a decade of new challenges and paradoxes and disagreement, all eyes will be on our elected representatives to set the tone of our national discourse.

Few elections in recent history have been characterized by such salient incivility as the present. Republican nominee Donald Trump has set the dangerous precedent of employing demagoguery and dog whistles to exploit electoral fear for political gain, as voters have not punished him for his words and actions at the polls. While past elections have also been polarized, this cycle is noticeably devoid of the collegiality that existed between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and the mutual respect shared by Obama and John McCain.

Throughout the course of his candidacy, Trump has favored ad hominem attacks over substantive debate. Instead of enumerating specific policy proposals, he has resorted to personal attacks.

Free speech is critical to rational and constructive debate, but Trump’s divisive rhetoric isn’t merely politically incorrect or irresponsible – his dangerous language has helped to foment violence.

He has chosen to use his right to free speech to abdicate personal responsibility, ignoring the importance of responsible speech and the consequences of his words. He is concerned with the freedom of expression, but only for himself; he does not afford the same first amendment rights he aggressively touts to others.

It falls on the public to reject the precedent Trump and his political contemporaries have set. Living in an increasingly polarized political climate, we must remind ourselves of the importance of civil discourse despite the behavior of our presidential candidates. As we go forth in the world, we’ll encounter people of diverse backgrounds, experiences and belief systems. These differences in thought will inevitably engender disagreement, and we may find that the exercise of one person’s freedom conflicts with another’s. Freedoms suppose responsibilities and when confronting more and more complex issues, we must remember to remain civil and informed to maintain constructive debate.

Our candidates should set the standard, not lower it – presidential debates should educate society on how to respectfully disagree.