Inspire, Spring 2012

concerns in an informal setting, whether coffee shops, restaurants, or social media channels. Habermas calls for us to recognize the other’s right to speak and respect his ability to explain his point. When we offer communicative freedom to one another in a communication encounter, we create a public space with our words. The space remains open for others to join and contribute to the discussion. A democracy is defined by this level of openness because it requires more citizen engagement than a despotic government does. Additionally, ideal rhetoric requires that I realize that the person with whom I disagree is thinking about the same issue from a different perspective and that I should attempt to understand that perspective. In this scenario, as both participants listen attentively to each other, one person might decide to adopt or move closer to the other’s perspective. But even if we never quite agree, the conversation helps us understand the necessity of the encounter. And if we end on a peaceful basis, then perhaps the conversation can be resumed at another time. Rhetoric scholars Richard Cherwitz and James Hikins call this “self-risk.” When I engage another person in a political conversation, I must be willing to moderate or change my position if I realize it is not as strong, correct, or well-reasoned as the competing one. In their book City of Man , Michael Gerson, former head speechwriter for George W. Bush, and Peter Wehner, who also worked under former President Bush, say that “democracy … was designed for disagreement.” They reference Galatians, where Paul confronts Peter in front of a group of people, and remind us that wit and sarcasm are effective when used well. They warn against calling for civility that requires “hollowed-out principles” and “lukewarm moral commitments” (p. 122). The D.C. interns and I talked extensively about the need for civility in government. But the goal is not simply to have a smoothly running democracy. As Gerson and Wehner say, “It has to do with reflecting a view of human persons and their inherent dignity. It means treating people with respect and good manners regardless of the views they might hold” (p. 123). Being willing to participate in the conversation in the public square does not mean we will solve all of society’s problems. But it should provide a better opportunity to understand one another. We can avoid shutting down the discussion and accusing one another of being misleading, deceitful, or frivolous. Principles to Live By So why can’t politicians understand how to engage in civil discourse? The rule of the day last fall was for one politician to demagogue another who had a different position. When the deciding factor was whether a candidate would survive the looming primary in order to fight another day, even once-friendly Republicans adopted a leave-no-survivors strategy. Perhaps they don’t understand — or perhaps they do understand — the standards for free speech in the public square, yet they believe this is how citizens (or the media, which we support when we watch, listen, or read) want them to behave. It seems to be the way many citizens treat them. Cedarville’s D.C. interns who worked on Capitol Hill frequently spoke about the number of angry or mean-spirited phone calls they answered from constituents. And we hear a constant stream of talk, some of it casual conversation when the politicians think the microphone is turned off, in which another political leader is dismissed or demonized. Self-risk is a threatening practice to employ because it forces me to think carefully about my opinions and to be able to defend them. While I would never apply this standard to the truth of Scripture, there are many instances during the course of a day where I can apply this principle. Would it benefit me to talk openly with someone from the other side, allowing her to be heard — really heard — and then comparing her position to mine, with an honest willingness to moderate my position if I begin to see its weakness? As I experienced for myself, the D.C. Semester prepares students to recognize what’s at stake if we, as a nation, undermine the very principles on which our democracy rests. Conviction and plurality are essential — but only when coupled with respect, civility, and a humble willingness to admit our own faults. Dr. Deborah (Bush) Haffey ’68 is a senior professor of communications in the department of media and applied communications. She received her M.A. in communications and her Ph.D. in political communications, both from The Ohio State University. She is in her 26th year of teaching at Cedarville, and she lives in Beavercreek, Ohio, with her husband, David ’69. You may contact her at haffeyd@cedarville.edu . The D.C. Semester is a unique opportunity for students and faculty to live, learn, and work in our nation’s capital. CEDARVILLE UNIVERSITY 43 facul ty voi ce