PERSPECTIVE ON DEMOCRACY : Restore Civility to the Process : Displays of public contempt toward ‘the other’ group or individual discourage citizen participation.

There is today a great sickness loose in the land, a sickness that, left unchallenged, threatens the social, political and religious institutions of our nation. It is everywhere in evidence: the disappearance of civil dialogue, a disdain of those who hold contrary views, an unease with people of another color, a contempt of those whose lifestyles seem to mock our own.

The damage being done to the public dialogue is so pervasive in its effect that men and women of goodwill rightfully wonder whether civility and respect for others can be restored to the way we treat one another.

So deep does this malady go, this demonization of others that Yale professor Stephen L. Carter writes about in his new book “Integrity,” that almost no one, whether of the left or the right, liberal or conservative, progressive or moderate, evangelical or fundamentalist, is free from its divisive and destructive contagion. In varying degrees, we all are caught up in it; we all have contributed to this environment of anger and hostility. And we all have a stake in standing up now with those who believe that this assault on decency and fairness can be met by a new civility.

“Civility” is really about two things: the quality and integrity of our public discourse and the level and depth of citizen participation in the political process.

Politics has always been rough, but the nature of political discussion seems to have reached a new low across America, in the halls of Congress, on the campaign trail, in local communities, even in churches.

Treating opponents and opposing ideas with contempt and ridicule has consequences that affect us all. It poisons the debate, polarizes the options and prevents us from finding real solutions to the problems that vex us.

Public discussion should be vigorous, sharp and competitive. All of our often competing interests, values and constituency needs must be open to debate for this democracy to remain healthy. But disrespect is a different thing altogether. The lack of civility actually damages the democratic process by making it almost impossible to find common ground.

To put it spiritually, much of our political discourse today dishonors the image of God in each other and in the human pursuit of peaceful community.

We must do more than simply change our language; we must learn to honor the process and its participants by treating disagreement with respect.

When political discourse is “uncivil,” it discourages citizen involvement. When politics is characterized mostly by blaming and scapegoating, it creates public cynicism and withdrawal, as the plummeting voters turnouts show. Every issue that affects the level and quality of citizen participation in politics is an issue of civility.

Today, few people believe that it is possible to scale the peaks of electoral politics without being corrupted. While there always has been an element of that in how people view politicians, the breadth and depth of it today is a dangerous development.

Honesty, respect, principle, openness, fairness, accessibility, involvement, all are issues of civility. In the democratic clash of values, there must be some agreement about values of public discourse itself. The ways we disagree can sometimes be as important as the things upon which we agree.

Can we differ strongly with our opponents and still value the worth and human dignity of our adversaries? Can we energetically seek to influence public policy and remain committed to the fairness of the political process? Do we truly believe in the values of a pluralistic democracy? Can the religious right agree to these values? Can the liberal left? Can Republicans? Can Democrats? Can you?

What are you prepared to do about it?