On the thrilling and unexpectedly freeing realization that spectacle is hollow and beauty is everywhere. Just watch the Civility Summit recap video and see for yourself!
William — thank you, as always, for engaging with seriousness and care.
The heart of Civic Renaissance is about reclaiming our agency as citizens — our ability to think, choose, and act without being manipulated by those who profit from our outrage. Whether it’s politicians, pundits, or platforms, many now treat our attention as a resource to be mined.
That was the spirit behind my comment. I wasn’t questioning the sincerity or civility of the demonstrators, but the way powerful interests often turn moral seriousness into spectacle — reducing civic life to performance. When public life rewards mockery over reflection, our task as citizens is to resist becoming reactive ourselves: to choose discernment over spectacle.
The real work of civic renewal begins when we do just that — when we cultivate the inner freedom to think clearly, speak honestly, and act constructively even amid noise and provocation.
I’m grateful for your continued presence here, William. Your willingness to challenge and engage is itself an act of citizenship — and precisely the kind of thoughtful exchange our public life needs more of.
Thank you, Alexandra. I take your point about attention being mined—and agree that outrage too easily becomes currency. But what you describe as “taking back our attention” can shade into indifference when injustice demands witness and history itself demands outrage. When citizens rally peacefully against real wrongdoing, that isn’t spectacle; it’s conscience made public.
Civic renewal begins not in boredom with the noise but in courage to face it—especially while the president shares a video depicting himself in a fighter jet dropping what appeared to be feces on U.S. protesters, and a top adviser calls them “domestic terrorists.”
Your own response is hardly excessive, but moderation itself can be excessive in the face of massive cruelty.- I clicked “like” on your response because I do appreciate your attention—and the seriousness with which you engage.
I have to also say, we can do something about what the Prez says, especially when he lies. His main claim for supporting sending our own military into our own communities is that cities are "burning down." Show us some evidence of that. He's claimed that Gavin Newsom refused to "turn on the water" for the most recent fires, but show us the evidence that there is a special switch for water. Especially when we should all know that's not how the water system even works.
Now, after claiming his ballroom project wouldn't affect the existing White House, a literal symbol of our nation & its long successful Democratic system, he used a backhoe to trash a huge section. Normally, there should have been a whole system of actions to try to preserve things, make sure its safe, etc, but they did none of that.
What's civil about any of that? I understand that part of your desire is to encourage people to step away from politics & focus on our communities, but how? With ICE raids, the military, gerryrigging illegally, tarriff that have once again destroyed our farmers, & he's spending millions on a ballroom, like we live in a Victorian age.
If we walk away from politics, at this most critical stage, things will get even worse, for the most vulnerable members of our community. I would love to go back to the days when we never heard about the Prez, every single day, but sadly politics is woven into the very fabric of our lives.
It makes the rules/laws that we live under, it affects our employment, infrastructure, & services. It can determine where we live, what kind of family we can have, whether we own a home or rent, whether we can create our own businness or not. I would argue that a large part of how things got this way is that so many of us were already ignoring politics.
Beautifully said. You’ve captured exactly why disengagement isn’t neutrality—it’s surrender, or at least fiddling while Rome burns. Politics shapes daily life—and who enjoys a good meal—especially for those with the least power to escape its reach. Your reminder that civic duty begins with paying attention, not turning away, speaks to the very heart of what responsible citizenship requires.
Nearly seven million people turned out nationwide for the “No Kings” rallies, making it one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history. “Another performance of anger. Another round of national humiliation packaged for clicks.” Really?
That makes the noble ideals of Civic Renaissance sound more like Civic Denial. Civility prevailed at those rallies—peaceful, orderly, and resolute—even amid sweeping purges of government critics, innocent or not, and threats to non-white citizens, guilty or not, with deportation or Alcatraz looming.
The protesters have adopted the argument that was central to the American Revolution—that monarchical tyranny is inferior to representative democracy.
As the moderator in the video discussion reminds us, citing Pascal: “Lock yourself in a room—and think about it.”
I remain a paying supporter of Civic Renaissance because I still believe we are better than that—or could be.
I'm not seeing any discussion about the "civility," or what I am more interested in, the ethics, of our leaders, especially the GOP now. Don't forget, the GOP tried to tell us that the No KIngs protests were "hate America" protests, they would be filled with socialists, communists, Marxists, & Antifa.
What's civil about fear mongering, & being unwilling to even be honest about what our opponents are saying themselves? Why would they need to demonize the protests? I thought we focused on the merits of our arguments, which the GOP was especially focused on after the murder of Charlie Kirk, a man who often spoke about that.
I felt outrage on Sunday morning and I am fine with that. I think it's in keeping with the idea of civility because that AI video was the very epitome of un-civil. And if I simply shrug it off then I, in the words of one of the leaders of the LDS church I admire, am becoming numb. This is what D. Todd Christofferson--hardly someone who could be said to be uncivil--said about his time working on the Watergate investigation: “The life lesson I took away from that experience [Watergate, for which he was an investigating lawyer under Federal Judge Sirica] was that my hope for avoiding the possibility of a similar catastrophe in my own life lay in never making an exception — always and invariably submitting to the dictates of an ethical conscience. ... A weak conscience, and certainly a numbed conscience, opens the door for ‘Watergates,’ be they large or small, collective or personal." - D. Todd Christofferson, newly appointed to First Presidency of LDS Church
Thank you for this — and for invoking such a powerful example.
I agree: outrage itself isn’t the problem. It can be the right and even necessary response to what violates human dignity. As Christofferson observed, numbness is not virtue; it’s abdication. A conscience that no longer feels indignation at injustice has lost something vital.
What concerns me — and what Civic Renaissance tries to name — is what happens after that moment of outrage. Do we stay there, allowing it to be harvested by those who manipulate our anger for profit or power? Or do we transmute it into something higher: courage, discernment, action ordered by reason and respect?
Civility, as I understand it, doesn’t require silence in the face of wrong. It asks that we hold our moral clarity and our humanity at once — that we respond not as pawns in a performance, but as citizens capable of moral judgment and self-command.
Thank you for bringing this insight and for modeling what thoughtful engagement can look like.
Thank you too! One further quote that I think speaks to what you just wrote. It's from Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun: "Humility does not necessarily require me to agree and comply with everyone else's position, but it does demand I be willing to understand and respect the many sides of every issue." (From: Radical Spirit: 12 Ways to Live a Free and Authentic Life)
William — thank you, as always, for engaging with seriousness and care.
The heart of Civic Renaissance is about reclaiming our agency as citizens — our ability to think, choose, and act without being manipulated by those who profit from our outrage. Whether it’s politicians, pundits, or platforms, many now treat our attention as a resource to be mined.
That was the spirit behind my comment. I wasn’t questioning the sincerity or civility of the demonstrators, but the way powerful interests often turn moral seriousness into spectacle — reducing civic life to performance. When public life rewards mockery over reflection, our task as citizens is to resist becoming reactive ourselves: to choose discernment over spectacle.
The real work of civic renewal begins when we do just that — when we cultivate the inner freedom to think clearly, speak honestly, and act constructively even amid noise and provocation.
I’m grateful for your continued presence here, William. Your willingness to challenge and engage is itself an act of citizenship — and precisely the kind of thoughtful exchange our public life needs more of.
Thank you, Alexandra. I take your point about attention being mined—and agree that outrage too easily becomes currency. But what you describe as “taking back our attention” can shade into indifference when injustice demands witness and history itself demands outrage. When citizens rally peacefully against real wrongdoing, that isn’t spectacle; it’s conscience made public.
Civic renewal begins not in boredom with the noise but in courage to face it—especially while the president shares a video depicting himself in a fighter jet dropping what appeared to be feces on U.S. protesters, and a top adviser calls them “domestic terrorists.”
Your own response is hardly excessive, but moderation itself can be excessive in the face of massive cruelty.- I clicked “like” on your response because I do appreciate your attention—and the seriousness with which you engage.
I have to also say, we can do something about what the Prez says, especially when he lies. His main claim for supporting sending our own military into our own communities is that cities are "burning down." Show us some evidence of that. He's claimed that Gavin Newsom refused to "turn on the water" for the most recent fires, but show us the evidence that there is a special switch for water. Especially when we should all know that's not how the water system even works.
Now, after claiming his ballroom project wouldn't affect the existing White House, a literal symbol of our nation & its long successful Democratic system, he used a backhoe to trash a huge section. Normally, there should have been a whole system of actions to try to preserve things, make sure its safe, etc, but they did none of that.
What's civil about any of that? I understand that part of your desire is to encourage people to step away from politics & focus on our communities, but how? With ICE raids, the military, gerryrigging illegally, tarriff that have once again destroyed our farmers, & he's spending millions on a ballroom, like we live in a Victorian age.
If we walk away from politics, at this most critical stage, things will get even worse, for the most vulnerable members of our community. I would love to go back to the days when we never heard about the Prez, every single day, but sadly politics is woven into the very fabric of our lives.
It makes the rules/laws that we live under, it affects our employment, infrastructure, & services. It can determine where we live, what kind of family we can have, whether we own a home or rent, whether we can create our own businness or not. I would argue that a large part of how things got this way is that so many of us were already ignoring politics.
Beautifully said. You’ve captured exactly why disengagement isn’t neutrality—it’s surrender, or at least fiddling while Rome burns. Politics shapes daily life—and who enjoys a good meal—especially for those with the least power to escape its reach. Your reminder that civic duty begins with paying attention, not turning away, speaks to the very heart of what responsible citizenship requires.
Discussion about the post.
Nearly seven million people turned out nationwide for the “No Kings” rallies, making it one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history. “Another performance of anger. Another round of national humiliation packaged for clicks.” Really?
That makes the noble ideals of Civic Renaissance sound more like Civic Denial. Civility prevailed at those rallies—peaceful, orderly, and resolute—even amid sweeping purges of government critics, innocent or not, and threats to non-white citizens, guilty or not, with deportation or Alcatraz looming.
The protesters have adopted the argument that was central to the American Revolution—that monarchical tyranny is inferior to representative democracy.
As the moderator in the video discussion reminds us, citing Pascal: “Lock yourself in a room—and think about it.”
I remain a paying supporter of Civic Renaissance because I still believe we are better than that—or could be.
I'm not seeing any discussion about the "civility," or what I am more interested in, the ethics, of our leaders, especially the GOP now. Don't forget, the GOP tried to tell us that the No KIngs protests were "hate America" protests, they would be filled with socialists, communists, Marxists, & Antifa.
What's civil about fear mongering, & being unwilling to even be honest about what our opponents are saying themselves? Why would they need to demonize the protests? I thought we focused on the merits of our arguments, which the GOP was especially focused on after the murder of Charlie Kirk, a man who often spoke about that.
I felt outrage on Sunday morning and I am fine with that. I think it's in keeping with the idea of civility because that AI video was the very epitome of un-civil. And if I simply shrug it off then I, in the words of one of the leaders of the LDS church I admire, am becoming numb. This is what D. Todd Christofferson--hardly someone who could be said to be uncivil--said about his time working on the Watergate investigation: “The life lesson I took away from that experience [Watergate, for which he was an investigating lawyer under Federal Judge Sirica] was that my hope for avoiding the possibility of a similar catastrophe in my own life lay in never making an exception — always and invariably submitting to the dictates of an ethical conscience. ... A weak conscience, and certainly a numbed conscience, opens the door for ‘Watergates,’ be they large or small, collective or personal." - D. Todd Christofferson, newly appointed to First Presidency of LDS Church
Thank you for this — and for invoking such a powerful example.
I agree: outrage itself isn’t the problem. It can be the right and even necessary response to what violates human dignity. As Christofferson observed, numbness is not virtue; it’s abdication. A conscience that no longer feels indignation at injustice has lost something vital.
What concerns me — and what Civic Renaissance tries to name — is what happens after that moment of outrage. Do we stay there, allowing it to be harvested by those who manipulate our anger for profit or power? Or do we transmute it into something higher: courage, discernment, action ordered by reason and respect?
Civility, as I understand it, doesn’t require silence in the face of wrong. It asks that we hold our moral clarity and our humanity at once — that we respond not as pawns in a performance, but as citizens capable of moral judgment and self-command.
Thank you for bringing this insight and for modeling what thoughtful engagement can look like.
Thank you too! One further quote that I think speaks to what you just wrote. It's from Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun: "Humility does not necessarily require me to agree and comply with everyone else's position, but it does demand I be willing to understand and respect the many sides of every issue." (From: Radical Spirit: 12 Ways to Live a Free and Authentic Life)
Yes! Moral outrage can coexist with civility and, in fact, may be required by it. Caricatures of conflict are complicit in what they deplore.