The political climate is heating up to a boiling point in the United States, with the presidential election next month.
The quality of the public discourse in the U.S. in recent years has not risen to very high levels. Of course, there will always be extreme partisan views expressed in any contest for power. However, it seems that polarized views are more prevalent and are sustained after election contests. To compromise is to fail, for many in the political sphere.
Does the legal profession have a role to play in encouraging more civil dialogue on public policy issues? The American Bar Association addressed this issue in 2011.
The ABA identified the importance of “civil public discourse”: the vigorous but responsible debate of the choices facing communities. Key elements of such a discourse or dialogue include respectful communication and informed public decision-making.
Words matter. How we treat each other matters. In our public discourse, it is time to begin talking to each other with mutual respect, no matter how much we disagree.
The ABA noted that lawyers are well suited to help address the problem of “uncivil” discourse. Lawyers have leadership roles in society and provide advice that can set the tone for debate. Lawyers also have the “gravitas” and in many cases the platform, to be heard.
Just as we have a voice, lawyers also have a choice: We can encourage a destructive tone that results in rancor, divisiveness, and public decision-making by power rather than reason or we can encourage the use of language and tone that is less divisive and more conducive to substantive discussion and rational decision-making. By encouraging more constructive civil discourse, we honor the profession’s most noble call, to statesmanship.
The ABA resolution has four parts: a statement of the principle of civil public discourse, a call to action for the legal profession, an appeal to those who work with government and the political process, and an authorization for ABA participation in the development of legal standards and practices that promote civil public discourse that are consistent with federal and state constitutional requirements.
The resolution asks lawyers engaged in the political process to “strive” to do better:
… it simply asks political actors to tone down the rhetoric and at least try to engage in political activities with greater regard for principles of civil public discourse than is often presently seen. At least try to demonstrate respect for opposing views instead of caustically dismissing them for cheap and divisive political effect. At least try to listen to the needs, interests, and concerns that underlie opposing political views with an open mind to see if there may be room for compromise or common ground upon which to build a mutually acceptable solution. At least try to engage in the issues rather than merely score political points. Of course, the highest level of civil public discourse may not be achievable in any particular situation. But that does not mean that all efforts are futile, and certainly does not justify using the most extreme of tactics. As in all other matters, change in political discourse comes through striving for what we can do, rather than falling victim to what we cannot, and it is change in the political discourse that these resolutions so fundamentally seek. Perfection need not be the enemy of the good.
These are noble sentiments. Certainly lawyers can and should lead by example. Will this be enough to turn the tide?