I suppose it would be tacky to just scrounge up a single example of McCain attacking the character of an opponent. So let's restrict ourselves to examples of McCain attacking the character of the most charitable Senator in America. Maybe this counts.

Does charity and/or respect in politics lead to substantively different political outcomes (e.g., a more centrist politics)? One would think yes, and in the case of the pre-2006 McCain that may be true. Though in the case of Obama, he seems to be - to borrow a phrase - utterly orthodox in his liberalism. The charity and respect seem to be a style, without much in the way of policy substantance flowing from the approach.

I don't think the original argument was that respect leads to more "centrist" politics, but rather that it can lead to an atmosphere in which rational elements of policies can be kept even if different parties bring different values to the table. It's even possible that more left or more conservative policies, depending on the particular circumstances, could come about as a result of a "respect dynamic" at work. Maybe you meant something else, but I also don't quite see how Obama's "orthodox" liberalism (whatever that is) is relevant to a discussion about respect vs. its opposite, as the content of an ideological position is exactly what respect is not about. Neither do I quite see why "style" should be dismissed as a secondary or insignificant quality, as respect/charity in political debate and struggle are expressed through style. How else?

As I understand Sunstein's argument, charity in politics involves taking the other side's argument as seriously as possible, and treating their underlying values with respect. I don't doubt that more charity (and respect) in politics would be useful in the short term. However, in the long term, it seems to me that unless a politician actually accomodates the other side in some substantive way, the "signals" he sends by being charitable will end up being seen as hollow and false, or even hypocritical. Take an "intractable" issue like abortion or gun rights. Could a politician on the left credibly say "I take seriously your concern that a fetus is a human being and that abortion is murder," and still not move - even incrementally - toward some middle ground with the other side? Could a politician on the left say "I take seriously your view that the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights," without accomodating that view in some way? I suppose it's possible to phrase the other side's arguments in the best manner possible and still disagree with them. However, I don't see how that kind of politics is logically sustainable in most cases. Disagreement in politics results precisely from discounting the concerns of the other side, to varying degrees, and talking around each other (e.g., in the abortion debate the right talks about life, the left talks about rights and autonomy). If you accept (or appear to accept) the concerns of the other side, stated on their best and strongest terms, you will often have a hard time explaining why you don't adopt the other side's position. If there were good direct counter-arguments to the "best" arguments made by both sides, you would not see political opponents talking around each other so much. At the end of the day, rather than pretending to take seriously the other side's concerns (without actually doing so), I think a more rational political approach is to argue in "small" terms rather than pretending to agree with the underlying belief systems. Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic Senator, used to do this well. I recall one argument about tax increases in which he said - and I am paraphrasing - "we support tax hikes on the rich not because we hate the rich or envy the rich or want to punish successful people, but because that's where the money is." That kind of non-ideological argument seems to me to actually have some chance of creating a consensus. Andrew Sullivan has made similar arguments about gay marriage to the effect that gays are here, they're not going anywhere, so why not come up with a social institution that will promote monogamy and other things that are good for society as a whole. It's not an argument based on human rights or other grand, debatable notions. Maybe Barack Obama is engaged in this kind of politics - I really don't know. Obama seems to have a particular talent for sounding positive and optimistic while avoiding taking concrete positions. I have not heard him address the hard questions.

I assume a politician on the left could say (and indeed many have said), "I understand your opposition to abortion and your religious belief in the rights of the fetus but I stand by certain legal and constitutional rights for women that have been confirmed by the Supreme Court. However, many things can and should be done to bring the abortion numbers down as far as possible, including better education of teenagers in sexuality and values. Will you join me in working to reduce the number of terminations in the U.S." What does the politician on the right say to that? Ideally, depending on the circumstances, he/she would say, "I will indeed do that, without however changing my basic position." Unfortunately, that is often not the case, as the politician on the right is not served by bringing some common sense and pragmatic cooperation to the matter, but by demonizing his/her opponent and demanding absolute surrender by the other side. That's exactly where a little respect and charity might be appropriate. One distinguishes thereby between the motives of the other party (assuming then to be informed by the same common desire to do the people's business effectively) and the positions of the other party (that one can freely describe as bad, negative, insane, whatever). To reverse your examples, litwinski, can a right-wing politician credibly say, for example, that he/she believes that there is a real danger to America's constitutional balance if this administration continues on its path of consolidating unenvisaged executive power in the presidency, without moving a little in the direction of doing something about it?

Of course the right should also move to the center on some issues, and not just rhetorically. That's why I gave the example on gay marriage. There are others on which I think you could see some consensus if the arguments were "small" and practical rather than arguments that challenge each others' worldview. Tax hikes on the rich is another issue. I'm not saying you will get everyone to agree, but you may find enough people are amenable to a particular policy change if they understand that it doesn't attack their core underlying values. (But it's difficult to actually empathize, or sound like it, if you really don't. An example of the difficulty is unintentionally made in your first statement about abortion - your assumption that opposition to abortion is based on religious views. Obviously it often is, but one can be pro-life (or pro-anything else) without having any religious foundation for those views. Rather than empathizing, what you are doing in that case is making a wrong assumption about the person's belief system.)

It's my experience that religious beliefs are primarily what dictate people's position on abortion, not exclusively but primarily. Perhaps you know differently. In any event, apart from that, I was just providing an brief and crude example, so a detailed parsing of its "assumptions" is (a) inappropriate and (b) misses the point. However, your own very questionable and even more basic assumption is your proposed hierarchy in which "style" comes in way behind "policy substance." If somebody has respect for another's position, how can they express that except by the style of their approach to debate, conflict, etc? And, conversely, how can "policy substance" do anything for mutual respect/charity if the preparatory debates have been marked by contempt and demagoguery? I'm also very curious about your comment -- as I noted earlier -- on Obama's "orthodox" liberalism. Why should the orthodox nature, or otherwise, of Obama's politics prevent his respect and charity being genuine? Once again, respect and charity in the first instance are not primarily about ideology or even legislation, but about both style and character, as both are connected. In general, I would suggest that Obama's style makes it somewhat easier for opponents -- even on very fraught issues -- to talk to him and others in a mutually respectful way. This says nothing about what kinds of policy may emerge, and it doesn't really have to. We're talking about tone and context.

...from all appearances is the charm and intelligence to genuinely extend respect and charity to political opponents. I don't think there's a single thing more needed in todays poisonous political atmosphere. We need national unity on crucial issues more now than at any time in the last half-century, and we're hurting ourselves by alternatively behaving as if Bush is the AntiChrist, or his opponents are in league with Al Qaeda.

Ironyroad, at the end of the day a politician who is merely rhetorical in his charity and respect for his political opponents may well end up making that rhetoric into a hollow verbal tic. Think of the meaningless phrase "With all due respect" that people sometimes add to the beginning of a sentence. You can add a lot of other empathetic language as the preamble, but if you always end up in the same (liberal) position, that approach will end up wearing thin in a short period of time. I have not seen anything in Obama's record that would indicate anything other than a mainstream left-liberalism. At the end of the day, he is an extremely natural and talented politician, but the charity will eventually be seen as merely an act if it is not followed by centrist compromise.

I disagree, because I don't think the argument is really about compromise -- compromise can take place for many reasons, not only because somebody has moved toward somebody else's position. Very often it's purely tactical. We're talking about respect, which is not merely a tactic. I certainly agree that verbal tics are meaningless, but Obama's postions (or McCain's, or Bernie Sanders' or Trent Lott's or whoever's) are not in most cases reducible to verbal tics. They can have something to do with style, however, which is not a verbal tic but a way of engaging in debate and conflict that doesn't dehumanize or show contempt for opponents. I'm not sure why you can't or won't make that distinction. To put it another way, what bothers me is that you appear to think that a willingness to compromise on principle is the most clear signal of an active respect/charity dynamic. I don't think so at all -- that begins to look like sheer opportunism, in which you look at the political landscape, find the middle, and put yourself there no matter what. Respect is, once again, not about specific results but about the attitudes, tones, and styles that enable people to talk to one another and maybe even find some common ground (not the same as compromise), as in my example on both pro-choice and anti-abortion politicians being able to meet on the policy goal of trying to reduce abortions as much a possible.

If Obama seems like a giant it's surely because we've been offered pygmies and dwarves for over a decade. IMO a good test of Obama's ability "to talk to [his opponents] and maybe even find some common ground (not the same as compromise)" will be his positions on Iran and Iraq. No better way to introduce principled, intelligent respect into our political dialogue than to start by respecting the complexity of the choices we faced in 2002 (and 1998, and 1994, and 1991...) and the difficulties and complexity we face now and will continue to face in the region for many years. Not sure that will help him with the nutroots in the Iowa primary, though....

There are instances in civil discourse when your interlocutor deserves neither your charity nor your respect (save that his or her position might be so ludicrous that you might be inclined to be charitable by not being unkind.) Still, I suggest that there is a hierarchy for the values of charity and respect in relation to civil discourse, as "charity" and "respect" are conventionally understood, and respect precedes charity in that hierarchy, though of course one need not crowd out the other. To support that hierarchy, I'd argue that while the opposite of respect is worse than the opposite of charity, respect itself carries no negative connotation in relation to civil discourse, whereas charity can, as in "I don't need your charity", or "don't patronize me." If charity is taken to mean generous-mindedness, and not benevolence to those in need of it, then I do not see it having any negative connotation, but "charity" does not admit of just that meaning. But I'd also argue that while I can imagine , a possibly impoverished, civil discourse without charity, I cannot imagine any civil discourse without respect-- a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition for civil discourse. In civil litigation, which is the civilised assertion of interests, charity as generous-mindedness, and not as a kind of alms, seems to me inapposite, not required and, in my experience, not present as far as the litigants are concerned. One proceeds or one compromises as one's interests dictate. Respect, however, is theoretcially built into the administration of civil justice as a necessary condition for its dispensation. It is for judges, depending on the issues, to be charitable in the sense of being generous minded, but this, I would argue, is not essential however desirable, whereas respect is. Finally, whereas insitutionally constrained respect--such as in the legislature--is essential for civility, even when not sincere, insincere charity must, I would think, arouse rage in its recipient.

There can be no charity without respect that is not an act of pity. There can be respect without charity.

charity versus respect posted by basman on 2007-01-22 21:41:17 [warn tnr] [respond] There are instances in civil discourse when your interlocutor deserves neither your charity nor your respect (save that his or her position might be so ludicrous that you might be inclined to be charitable by not being unkind.) Still, I suggest that there is a hierarchy for the values of charity and respect in relation to civil discourse, as "charity" and "respect" are conventionally understood, and respect precedes charity in that hierarchy, though of course one need not crowd out the other. To support that hierarchy, I'd argue that while the opposite of respect is worse than the opposite of charity, respect itself carries no negative connotation in relation to civil discourse, whereas charity can, as in "I don't need your charity", or "don't patronize me." If charity is taken to mean generous-mindedness, and not benevolence to those in need of it, then I do not see it having any negative connotation, but "charity" does not admit of just that meaning. But I'd also argue that while I can imagine , a possibly impoverished, civil discourse without charity, I cannot imagine any civil discourse without respect-- a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition for civil discourse. In civil litigation, which is the civilised assertion of interests, charity as generous-mindedness, and not as a kind of alms, seems to me inapposite, not required and, in my experience, not present as far as the litigants are concerned. One proceeds or one compromises as one's interests dictate. Respect, however, is theoretcially built into the administration of civil justice as a necessary condition for its dispensation. It is for judges, depending on the issues, to be charitable in the sense of being generous minded, but this, I would argue, is not essential however desirable, whereas respect is. Finally, whereas insitutionally constrained respect--such as in the legislature--is essential for civility, even when not sincere, insincere charity must, I would think, arouse rage in its recipient. also, just thought of it posted by basman on 2007-01-24 16:26:27 [warn tnr] [respond] There can be no charity without respect that is not an act of pity. There can be respect without charity. Itzik Basman