Introduction to Part 3

Civic (and civil) discourse is the grease that lubricates the gears of democracy. For Americans to respect, deliberate, and transact with one another, we must communicate meaningfully in both public and private domains. In the preface to this book, I discussed what this type of communication entails and why I have sought to promote and practice it. The moniker “militant moderate” simply attests to the importance I ascribe to this kind of communication and why I believe that the future of our sacred democracy depends on it.

This Part features thirteen articles, most of them op-ed pieces, which seek to bring these abstract notions down to earth. Some of these articles address general features of civic discourse. One, written before pandemic and inflation struck us, is the widening gap between the norms and practices that prevail in our politics, on the one hand, and those that prevail in our civil society, on the other. I explore this growing gap in one essay and in another articulate principles that can guide us in closing this gap. Another feature of our discourse is the paucity of what I call public courage and clear thinking especially about topics that tend to rile us up or engender our discomfort. One piece explores this problem in the context of sexual harassment conflicts. Another takes up the “tribal politics” phenomenon, by which I mean disputes that tend to divide us decisively along recurrent, tenaciously-held lines.

Several essays take up what has come to be called “cancel culture.” Here, one's offense at a perceived practice or belief is taken as a license to simply dismiss or defame those who are thought to engage in that practice or hold that view. I present several examples of this. One particularly toxic example is the routine attribution of “systemic racism” to opponents or even to passive bystanders. This charge often serves as a conversation-stopper, a subject-changer, and a categorical dismissal of competing views. My longish essay on systemic racism, and a short, slightly overlapping one on the distinction between racism and racialism, together seek to dispel these destructive effects on a desperately needed public debate over the causes of continuing black disadvantage.