Rude Democracy

July 1, 2010
Rather than gauge the degree of civility and incivility in our contemporary politics against standards that are always too difficult to define, we should instead think of civility and incivility as "strategic tools" with interactive and emotional components and as "strategic assets" used contextually. This is the thesis of political scientist Herbst (public policy, Georgia Inst. of Technology; "Reading Public Opinion", whose brief book consists largely of three case studies: Sarah Palin's rallies during her 2008 campaign, Barack Obama's 2009 Notre Dame speech about civility, and a 2008–09 survey on campus speech commissioned by Georgia's state legislature. Herbst has written several well-received books about public opinion, but her arguments here often puzzle. When she suggests, for example, that to improve our political discourse we need "more projects, national in scope," funded by foundations, as well as classroom teachers trained in argumentation, one wonders why anyone inclined to view incivility as a tactic, often an effective one at that, would pay any attention to reverse efforts. VERDICTReaders will do better with Stephen L. Carter's "Civility" C.T. Sistare's "Civility and Its Discontents" or Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel's "Common Ground"—Bob Nardini, Nashville

Copyright 2010 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.