By Emily Stimpson

Election anger

Author argues that Americans are losing the ability to converse civilly with one another

Whatever happened to polite disagreement? During the months leading up to Election 2008, the conversations of America's political punditry -- from bloggers on "Daily Kos" to partisans on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes"-- were often marked more by name-calling than by reason.

The conversations of average Americans didn't fare much better, with Internet comment boxes filled with vitriol and more than a few family get-togethers ending with shouting and door slamming.

According to Stephen Miller, author of  "Conversation: A History of a Declining Art" (Yale, $17), that's because Americans aren't just losing their ability to converse civilly about politics: They're losing their ability to converse at all. Recently, Our Sunday Visitor spoke with Miller about the national political conversation of 2008, what defined it and why polite disagreement has become an oxymoron in modern political discourse.

Our Sunday Visitor: What does a decline in the art of conversation have to do with politics?

Stephen Miller: The Scottish philosopher David Hume thought a lot about liberty and worried that without good conversation, liberty could lead to civil discord. Good conversation requires a certain restraint or politeness. People screaming at each other and calling each other names is not conversation; there's no politeness, no listening, or give and take. When that's missing, Hume argued, societies based on liberty might unravel.

OSV: Do you see that happening in America today?

Miller: I see a lot anger, and I see a coarsening of political conversation. Some of that comes from the idea that we should be natural and express ourselves freely in conversation; I don't think there's anything good about being natural. Natural usually means rude. As human beings, we're often irritable, impatient and annoyed. We have to work at being polite. People don't learn to be polite playing video games three or four hours a day, and they don't learn it on the Internet. People spend so much time on the Internet, and good-natured disagreement is almost impossible there. Without being able to see someone's expression or hear their tone of voice, words are easily misconstrued. People see anger when no anger was intended. The Internet also encourages uncivil behavior because of its anonymity. You can get away with being obnoxious. You can say things on blogs or in e-mails and comment boxes that you would never say in person.

OSV: So the blame for bad conversation goes to the Internet?

Miller: I'm not entirely against the Internet. Like every writer I have to live in that world. But it has had a negative influence on conversation in a number of ways. Spending too much time on the Internet prevents people from learning the social skills necessary for good conversation -- how to read expressions, how to deal with the play of disagreement, and, most important, how to listen. All too often now, in face-to-face conversation, when someone else is talking, people will be nodding, but not really listening. They're just waiting for their turn to talk. That's not real interaction. They aren't evaluating someone else's point of view. They're just thinking up ways to dismiss the other person's point of view.

OSV: Would you say people have become less open to some of the fruits that come from conversations about politics -- to learning more about a given topic or having their own views refined, sharpened or even changed?

Miller: It's human nature to not want our views questioned, but again we come back to the Internet. If you spend a lot of time on the Internet, it's easier to acquire the habit of holding forth on a topic. Also, if you're just getting your information from the Internet, it's easier to seek out information that confirms your own political views. People aren't just doing this on the Internet though. In the book "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Likeminded America is Tearing Us Apart," the author argues that people are no longer mixing with people with different views. They're also moving into communities of like-minded people. What that ultimately leads to is that people don't understand how anybody can disagree with them, and when they encounter someone who does think differently, they won't even enter into a conversation with them.

OSV: What about what you call in your book "ersatz conversations" -- conversations we don't participate in but rather observe as spectators, conversations like those we hear on talk radio or watch on CNN? How are those conversations impacting the way we talk about politics?

Miller: First of all, I think the growing prevalence of those kinds of shows is part of the general pattern of people retreating from face-to-face conversations. In my book I quoted a woman who said she used to host dinner parties, but stopped because everyone started screaming at each other. Now she watches conversations on television while eating her dinner. But besides that, the conversations we see on television are scripted and predictable. Rarely do you see someone of a certain political stripe say: "I was wrong. I agree with you now." If they did, they'd be thrown off the program. That contributes to the problem we talked about earlier, about people not listening and just looking for ways to dismiss other's views. You have guys like Chris Matthews asking people questions, but never letting them answer. Political conversations become a sport, and the audience becomes the spectators cheering their guy on. That kind of approach doesn't encourage people to really think an issue through. They end up looking to the pundit who's on "their side" and simply saying, "That's my opinion."

OSV: Was there anything positive about the political conversations surrounding this most recent election.

Miller: I think some of the conversation about this most recent presidential election was less angry than the last election. The war in Iraq went to the back burner. It wasn't talked about as much, and that meant the conversation wasn't as polarizing. As a French writer once said: "I hate war. It ruins conversation."

OSV: Any tips for how to talk about the election and politics in general with family members over the holidays?

Miller: First, don't get angry at someone just for saying something you disagree with. Second, don't dismiss people who disagree with you out of hand. Ask them why they think that way and really listen to their explanation. Finally, if they get angry, change the subject.

Emily Stimpson is an OSV contributing editor.

Civility in the blogosphere

Because Internet anonymity lacks the personal accountability of face-to-face conversations, some blogs are finding they need to impose rules of civility on those who would leave comments to their posts. Here's one example of such a set of rules, which OSV also enforces at osvdailytake.com.

RULES FOR COMMENTS: We want to host a constructive but civil discussion among mature adults. With that in mind:

1. No name-calling or personal attacks; stick to the argument, not the individual.

2. Assume the goodwill of the other person, especially when you disagree.

3. Don't make judgments about the other person's sinfulness or salvation. You are not the Inquisition.

4. Within reason, stick to the topic of the thread; no conversation hijackers, please.

5. If you don't agree to the rules, don't post.

We reserve the right to block or edit (tone, not content) any posts that violate our usage rules. And we will freely ban any commenters unwilling to abide by them.

Finally, our comments are moderated so there may be a delay between the time when you submit your comment and the time when it appears.

Rules courtesy of insidecatholic.com.

Email us your comments: feedback@osv.com.