The first thing Mike Johnson did upon being elected speaker of the House was extend an olive branch to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Johnson began his first speech to the House by looking Jeffries in the eye and uttering these gracious words:
I want to thank leader Jeffries. I do look forward to working with you on behalf of the American people. I know we see things from very different points of view, but I know that in your heart you love and care about this country and you want to do what’s right. We are going to find common ground there.
It is too soon to tell whether Johnson’s words are a harbinger for how he will behave in office or merely a celebratory formality. But at this time in the history of our country — and our world — it is good to reflect on the transformative power of civility toward those who see the world differently than we. Many years ago, a famous philosopher, Jesus of Nazareth, counseled:
You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Of course, Jesus was not a national political leader, and, in some ways, his career did not end well. But as we anticipate an all-out Israeli invasion of Gaza with overwhelming force to destroy Hamas in retaliation for the bloody Oct. 7 attacks perpetuated on civilians by Hamas, it is worth pondering the incentive effects of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” as a strategy. The phrase was intended to mean to take only one eye for the loss of an eye, not to retaliate by upping the ante. That is the current aspirational standard for the use of force that is “proportional” in international law.
READ MORE from E. Donald Elliott: Biden Must Pardon Trump to Avert Civil War
An eye-for-an-eye response rarely teaches the other side a lesson that results in less violence in the future, although that is often its stated goal. Even if the Israeli response is proportional, thousands of civilians in Gaza will die as “collateral damage.” Many of them will have relatives and friends who will hate the Israelis even more for killing their loved ones and will vow revenge. The cycle of violence in which one “retaliation” leads to another is well-documented in sociology as the “blood feud” — think of the Hatfields and the McCoys or Shakespeare’s Montagues and Capulets. Blood feuds have been persisting in the Middle East for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
What’s the alternative? A new book by a young philosopher, Alexandra Hudson, proposes a different way that she calls “civility.” Civility, she argues, is different from politeness, although the two are often confused. The essence of civility, in her sense, is to acknowledge the basic humanity of those with whom one disagrees and to try to accommodate their legitimate concerns. The book displays remarkable classical learning in its 400 pages — far too much to be summarized here, but the subtitle gives a good preview of her overall argument: The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.
Civility, as Hudson describes it, is the essence of what Johnson promised to do with Jeffries: to hear his legitimate concerns and try to accommodate them whenever possible. We will see how well that works in practice, but to live together in peace in a polity as diverse as the United States, we have to recognize our differences and try to accommodate them. Bill Maher put the point more pungently: “[T]he single shining truth about democracy: it means sharing a country with a**holes you can’t stand.”
Increasingly, in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear and high-tech conventional weapons such as drones and killer robots, Maher’s point applies worldwide; we have no rational choice but to try to learn to live together despite our differences, an approach sometimes called “peaceful co-existence.” I share Elon Musk’s fear that the cycle of retaliation and counterretaliation in the Middle East could easily spiral out of control, escalating into World War III. That is the way that blood feuds often end: creating a tragedy so terrible that even angry and hurt people can see there is no alternative but to try to transcend their differences and live in peace. Shakespeare understood that. Romeo and Juliet is usually seen as a love story, and it is — for the first four acts. But in the final act, the beautiful young lovers end up lying dead on the stage. Confronted with this tragedy, their elders see what their rage against one another has wrought and finally come to their senses. (READ MORE from E. Donald Elliott: A Lesson From the War in Ukraine: Don’t Rely on ‘the Kindness of Strangers’)
It is hard to see how civility, or turning the other cheek rather than retaliating for outrageous wrongs, could be applied to international events. The immediate aftermath of a horrendous attack such as that which took place by Hamas on Oct. 7 is not a propitious time for compromise, as tempers are hot. But as President Joe Biden said, in the long run, the “two-state solution” is the only stable outcome. That’s the international equivalent of what Hudson calls civility: acknowledging the legitimate rights and concerns of people with whom we fundamentally disagree.
Unfortunately, we humans have short attention spans; we tend to ignore problems when things are quiet but to be unable to address issues rationally when, in the aftermath of an atrocity like Oct. 7, our attention is focused. Plus we tend to forget the results of the last war to end all wars.
Let’s hope we rediscover the path to civility. The alternative of a nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran leading to World War III is too terrible to contemplate. And that’s why we had better be contemplating it.
