The Tradition of Democratic Civility


Consider these recent remarks by a leader in the Democrat Party.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength. When you’re dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power . . . funded by corporate interests . . . you can be civil but you can’t overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections.”

Obviously, this speaker believes the only way for Democrats to win elections is to be nasty to the extreme, implying this is unusual for Democrats, not a preferred course of action. We’ll identify this speaker later. For now, let’s take a deeper look at these remarks.

(Please notice up front, the speaker makes it clear, if voters elect Republicans to carry out an agenda that must be overcome, the voters must be overcome. But, if Democrats win elections, everyone is ‘fortunate.’)

The first premise: “You cannot be civil” with Republicans because they want to destroy what you stand for.

Biden Makes Massive Move That May Help Chances Against Trump, Aims at Lowering Gas Prices After Big Decision

The top three issues on the minds of voters are: illegal immigration, the economy and healthcare, in that order. The economy is robust so Democrats can’t talk about it to any advantage regardless of incivility. Healthcare is being reformed and the majority of voters are glad to see Obamacare being dismantled. Very few are motivated to debate the social issues so dear to most radical Democrats, so, let’s focus on illegal immigration.

Where do Democrats stand on illegal immigration?

According to Gallup only 18% of Democrats see illegal immigration as a problem. Therefore, naturally, they aren’t looking for solutions. Is that what they stand for, allowing a problem to fester? How is it that Republicans are “destroying” what Democrats stand for by trying to solve a real problem?

Furthermore, Democrat formal policy on the topic is to promote open borders, general amnesty, sanctuary cities, and the provisioning of public benefits to all illegal immigrants, in every category. These are all serious violations of standing law. The Democrat policy of breaking the law on a vast scale to the serious detriment of citizens, is a policy worth opposing! How is turning against a thoroughly destructive policy “destroying” something?

Do you believe the left will do anything to win elections?

Somehow promoting destruction is constructive in the Democrat mind? How are Republicans being destructive by trying to solve a problem Democrats don’t even acknowledge?

Perhaps the most compelling issue helping to sweep Donald Trump into the White House in 2016 was the immigration question. His approach, now the Republican solution, when boiled down to its essence, is ENFORCE THE LAW. How is that acting to “destroy” what Democrats stand for, unless of course they are admitting to an overall posture of lawlessness, coupled with their consistent condemnations of law enforcement.

Are Democrats also unconcerned about the security issues involved with the allowance of illegal activity all along the southern border?

The Democrat speaker here suggests Republicans are evil doers for opposing policies that are lawless, policies that are thoroughly destructive to the health and well-being of citizens, and illegal immigrants as well by the way. The twisted thinking delivered with a false accusation is quite apparent. Truth be told, it is evil to lie, mislead, slander and throw bombs. And this fact remains: voters say illegal immigration is of most concern, but only 18% of Democrats agree. Democrats have little in common with the majority, so are they “destroying” themselves?

Premise: If we win something in November we will return to civility.

Op-Ed: Bully Biden Threatens Our Democracy

Inherent in this statement is the belief that incivility will help Democrats win something in November, either the House, or the Senate, or both.

If you believe winning requires incivility, why would you call for civility if you win? Is the speaker saying that civility is only appropriate when Democrats are in power but if Republicans “destroy” what Democrats hold dear, incivility is the preferred option? Civility is supposed to be a given in civilized society, and incivility is not supposed to be a political weapon. Clearly, this speaker believes incivility is a weapon.

Point of clarification: when this speaker talks about “incivility” let’s be honest about the meaning of that term, in context. This speaker wants us to think about ‘appropriate incivility.’ If recent experience is a guide, ‘appropriate incivility’ includes false allegations of rape and manslaughter, false allegations of pimping women, dealing drugs, gang rape, and false allegations of alcoholism and perjury. ‘Appropriate incivility’ also includes death threats, ongoing harassment in public and private, threats of murder, dismemberment, threats of violence across the board, threats against children.

In other words, this speaker endorses anything as a means to an end. That should not surprise us since this speaker was completely indoctrinated by Saul Alinsky, communist subversive in the 60s and 70s, a man who taught it is necessary to employ ANY means to achieve the end: the communist paradise.

Premise: Republicans only respect strength and incivility is strength.

Actually, as we see now in the polls, being animalistic is rejected by the mainstream. Those who behave in that fashion are paying for it politically.

Premise: incivility is the only way to win elections.

Since this is being proven untrue, and since Democrats first used gross incivility in the 60s, and since they’ve lost ground ‘progressively’ for decades, Democrats show they are slow learners. Perhaps they’ve become so entrenched in incivility they have no options? The last Democrat to demonstrate civility was JFK, and that was 55 years ago. (Please don’t bring up Jimmy ‘apartheid’ Carter, the man who certified Hugo Chavez’s election, the man who demonized Republicans. Please do not attempt calling Bill Clinton a shining light of civility, or include Barack ‘teabagger’ Obama in that number.)

Imagine falling so far you are left trying to justify incivility, which is nothing more than murder by mouth. When one is willing to do absolutely anything to win elections, what is that called?

Premise: Republicans lust for power and prostitute themselves to corporations for funding.

The speaker is Hillary Clinton.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , , ,
After college, Allan Erickson enjoyed an 11-year career in journalism. He then turned to sales and marketing for a decade. Fourteen years ago, he started his own recruitment company. Allan & his wife Jodi have four children. He is the author of "The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence" (Tate Publishing, 2012.) He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom. To contact him, email