Civility, diatribe, and how Romans politicians handled conflict

The recent tragedy in Arizona has resulted in fans of both major political parties blaming the other party.  It has also prompted a call for civility and respect.  While I am all for civility and respect, my suspicion is that wihtout a clear picture of what civility looks like, we commoners will have no idea - that is, outside of saying please and thank you.

Our word civility hails from the Latin civilitas, civilitatis, f., which is related to civilis.  We get our words "civil", "civilized", and "civic" from these terms, which connect the public life and our role as citizens to the concepts of being affable, courteous, and polite.  Not that this gets us very far in understanding what it means to be civil.  Perhaps the other terms offer some insight.  Then again, perhaps they don't.

"Affable" means, among other things, that one is easy to talk to, friendly, polite; courteous suggests that one shows good manners and is polite.  "Polite" merely points us back to courteous and civil, so perhaps this civility is a "you'll know it when you see it" type of thing.

Keep in mind that the same culture that produced this words was also notorious for being less than civil when it came to political disagreements and daily life.  Consider the first two centuries before Christ and the fate of Tiberius Gracchus and his brother Gaius Gracchus, two elite Romans who died while advocating for the plight of the poor.  Tiberius was clubbed to death by a political opponent, while Gaius had his slave kill him when it became clear that his political opponent would slaughter him and his followers - with the consent of the Senate.  Things do not improve much.  Next you have two Roman generals, Marius and Sulla, and their rival supporters.  The solution to their political impass?  Massacres and proscription to silence opponents.  Things more or less follow this course for decades to follow.  Very little reasoning with opponents; might (or majority) makes right; uneasy alliances to secure majority (or might).

So how does this help our country, our citizens, our people?  More importantly, how should it guide our leaders?  Well to start, there will be either feigned civility or no civility if people focus on differences and not on commonalities.  I'm sure you've been in the setting (casual get together, office party, etc.) where there is "the contrarian" who wants nothing more than to argue with people about anything and to tell them why they are wrong.  The contrarian makes everything a debate; usually the goal is not consensus, but to win a few points.  Meanwhile, the contrarian ends up alienating others and setting himself or herself up as the benchmark of orthodoxy.  For instance, talk radio contrarians (whether on the left or the right) have the solution to everything, but do nothing to resolve disputes and seem only to prolong disputes.  Notably absent is any concept that could unite opponents and get them to respect others - at least end the ad hominem attacks and self-righteous proclamations.

Not that this requires us to ignore differences or to minimize serious issues.  But it requires us not to villify unnecessarily and to find consensus where it is to be found.  Then again, this is just my opinion, and you're stupid (or a democrat or a republican or a [fill in the blank]) if you disagree.

A new year and new beginnings

Well, here is trusting that 2011 will be better than 2010!  This will be a year that sees us moving to a new home and me moving to a new job, although the details on the latter remain to be seen: corporate counsel, insurance defense, plaintiff's work, general litigation, or tax and employee benefits.

The family is officially devoid of any real estate - we sold our beloved home yesterday to a wonderful woman who will now be close - i.e., around the corner - to her granddaughters.  Meanwhile, we are on the street huddling together for warmth and burning pine cones.  Okay, not really.  We buy our new (permanent? temporary?) home today and take possession in 20 days, while we are not leaving our current abode until early March.  So February will be a month of cleaning, painting, moving, etc., while January is a month of packing and cleaning.

As for the job, I understand that God is in control, that he loves me, and has a plan for me.  But, as Evan Baxter stated in Evan Almighty, "Could you love me less?"  I have been comfortable for the last 5+ years, doing something that I do well but don't particularly enjoy (how can anyone enjoy being a bank attorney or general creditors' rights - it requires one to ignore the plight of those most directly involved).  But God apparently has other plans, which remain unknown to me.  Nonetheless, it is exciting to see what new opportunities will come along.  More precisely, it is nerve-wracking to be reminded that I am not in control of my own life; none of us is.  In my case, it invovled one person deciding that he wanted me to find a new job, despite the fact that (1) I have been the best performing employee at my level , (2) my employer is making gobs of money on me, and (3) few others share his sentiment.

Alas, if ever there were a time to pursue my resolution to make a positive contribution to the world with my life, to pursue a passion, and to better provide for my family, now would be the time.  Here is trusting that the right door will open in the not-too-distant future.

On the plus note, Lecrae's song God is Enough (http://youtu.be/R2MDKibgsfM) has been an encouragement, though it makes my wife wonder about me.  It is a simple reminder that God is indeed enough.  He provides, he is present, he promises, and he protects.  So when life is scary, it is good to remind ourselves that God is enough, knows of our needs, and promises to provide.