What has happened to common decency? I am asked this question repeatedly when people learn I have written a book on civility.

The anguish in their voices tells me they are disappointed and disturbed by incivilities they experience as personal— small incidents that disappoint and disgust, what are now being called micro-aggressions.

But inevitably the conversation goes to something larger, something beyond individual indignities: a climate of incivility is settling in, they say.

They point to President Trump’s behavior, in despair over the noxious blurts in his tweets, his lies, name-calling, disregard of facts. Most disconcerting, they say, is how this behavior is settling in as acceptable—a frequent example being how folks at his rallies applaud his vulgarities. He misbehaves, but not to the level of inelectability?

Next comes the nasty snide-ness of the short retorts on social media. Cyberbullying. Language that harasses. Examples from Twitter abound.

Is there a way, they ask, to change this climate of incivility?

Doing so won’t be easy, I say. We’ll need to think big. Here’s a list for starters.

• Presidential candidates who exude the decency of civility.
• Social justice remedies in party platforms, income inequality foremost among them. Voters who support those platforms.
• Communities that insist on civil discourse in their various business, social, and religious groups as well as their schools.
• A gazillion individuals who recognize the decency of civility as an indispensable human good, who manifest the belief one conversation at a time.

Not so different, after all, from the kind of activism necessary to preserve the health of our planet. In civility’s case, preserving the health of our societal consciousness.

We could, of course, think of the debate in terms of the time-honored definition of courtesy and regard for one another.

Given what the cameras showed us, all seven candidates were left wanting at one point or another. They talked over one another. When they got attention, they attacked, mostly the front-runners. Emotion was visible. A sense of urgency underpinned exchanges.

Amy Klobuchar touted her record in a measured manner. Elizabeth Warren differentiated herself from Sanders sharply and pressed Bloomberg pointedly on his abhorrent treatment of women. Bloomberg woodenly touted his successes, more or less acknowledging his buying power. In one exchange, Buttigieg determinedly matched Sanders’ bluster, as if to point it out. Sanders stuck to his talking points, even in response to questions that called for fresh thinking. Biden touted his Catholic upbringing for playing by debate rules, placing his faith in black voters. Steyer hung in there.

This was debate at its rawest—candidates frantically counterpunching others’ ideas at this crucial moment of political positioning. For what clarity emerged, courtesy was sacrificed.

I’m more concerned, though, with civility in a larger sense—as the embodiment of a full humanity that embraces a commitment to interdependence of all and to the common good.

President Trump has destroyed this traditional notion of civility as an indispensable human good, as an inclusive collective consciousness with an ethical and moral center.

So who best advanced this larger sense of civility? Their programs matter, very much so, but ultimately they are evoked in the person, as Trump so alarmingly teaches us.

Any one of them, as they say of one another, would be an improvement on Trump. So who in the end most embodies the full humanity so central to civility?

I eliminate Steyer because, humanity aside, he simply lacks the broad-spectrum credentials necessary for the job, earnest though he is.

Sanders, front-runner status notwithstanding, has a gruff persona and dogmatic behavior that seems to belie the common-good, interdependence-of-all ideology of his programs--as in his failure to release his medical records, in not answering questions posed, and not providing detail on how his hugely expensive programs get paid for. Opinionated as he is, his posture does not evoke presidential dignity nor the inclination to compromise.

Bloomberg, riding on his experience as mayor of NYC, offers a wooden response to criticism of his racially charged stop-and-frisk policies and of his demeaning treatment of women, when a heartfelt public remorseful apology and acknowledgement of the wrongness and inhumanity of his behavior would have begun a personal reckoning to balance the goodness that his money has wrought. His performance and demeanor conceal the humanity that may lurk in his soul.

Biden, affable and caring, touts the successes of long career riddled with mistakes, some of which he acknowledges. But he rides too much on the coattails of his Vice Presidency and shows too seldom the wisdom of his age. A humane spirit glimmers through but is there enough staying power to see through four hard years?

Buttigieg is hugely intelligent, reasonable, measured, fair, somehow restrained, perhaps because war and gender experiences are in his psyche, perhaps because he realizes the audacity of his confidence in believing he could be President with so little political experience, perhaps because his stature in the race is almost too good to be true. Has his young soul garnered the substantive wisdom of experience to repair the world’s greatest democracy?

Klobuchar has a convincing I-know-how-to-get-things done appeal, along with a centrist platform that acknowledges costs and benefits of sensible programs, a restrained humanity that has propelled her electoral and Senate successes, and a zingy sense of humor. Focus on accomplishments only, though, diminishes her common-good and interdependence-of-all sensibilities.

Warren’s comforting I-have-a-plan approach reveals a well-thought-out detailed platform that makes interdependence of all a reality and speaks to common good in that it so clearly addresses those most in need in our society. Her critical intelligence, wisdom, and big-picture mentality could remake America’s soul after its sordid encounter with the inhumanity of President Trump.

On the whole, I’m heartened.

I’m saddened, though the candidates that evoke the deepest sense of full humanity—I count Warren at the forefront, along with Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Biden--are not the front-runners.

If I send copies of my book, Creating A New Civility, to Bloomberg and Sanders, do you suppose they’ll read and take to heart its message of civility as a commitment to full humanity?

You say you reject his repeated and overwhelming lies, bending of rules and norms, vindictiveness, denigrations, and retributions? You don’t condone his treatment of women or minorities?

You wouldn’t tolerate this behavior in your children? You’d avoid family and acquaintances who exhibit it?

In fact, you say you try to stem your prejudices and bring your implicit biases to consciousness.

So why, I ask, in civility’s name, would you tolerate such behavior in one of the most powerful men in the world, one whose behavior is pulling down the guardrails of democracy?

You say he’s getting things done? The economy is better?

Is this the same economy that was brought back to health under President Obama’s leadership, that is prodded along by tax cuts that bolster the rich and hurt the poor and do little to repair our infrastructure, lower drug costs, or provide health care for the needy?

You say he tells it like it is? Does hearing his “truths” really relieve your anxiety, the nervous feelings you have that lead you not to trust government and politics as usual?

You want a return to a time that seemed better and are willing to wear the make-America-great-again paraphernalia? Furthermore, you add, he’ll learn from his impeachment?

Sadly “I wouldn’t want him for a friend but I’ll vote for him anyway” bears resemblance to what Republican Senators said: “What he did was wrong but doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable.”

But these rationales have an ethical problem at their center. They have duplicity at their core. They create a false reality. They challenge the moral integrity that is central to democracy, to family or friendship, to the indispensable human good that is central to civility itself.

I implore you. Instead of passing off these incivilities for another four years of Trump’s civility-rending, democracy-threatening leadership, look yourself in your face. There is no humanity in wanting for others what you wouldn’t want for yourself.

Use your vote as a source of the virtue you would want for your children and theirs.

Use your vote to claim goodness for everyone who is affected by Trump’s incivilities.

Say, “I wouldn’t want him for my friend so I won’t vote for him.”

The political divisiveness of the moment is undermining our democracy.

Its roots are too often in hate, anger and win-at-all-costs rather than a fair and good-hearted rivalry.

Historians tell of moments of hate-filled hyper-partisanship at turning points — the Civil War, World War II, the Vietnam debacle, and so on.

After his election, they tell us, Eisenhower said, “My job is to unite the country.” None of that for Trump.

We are at a turning point now, with a president who believes his impeachment acquittal has vindicated him, who performs his hatred by lambasting opponents and challenging their faith during prayer breakfasts, who is side-lining the distinguished Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman who testified against him, and who creates an aura of anxiety that keeps Republican senators from voting their conscience out of fear of ostracism.

Sadly, the President’s lies, narcissism, and reality-show temperament is shaping Republicans into a Party of Trump, with its Senators leading the way. They trade their conscience for what Sherrod Brown (NYT editorial, 2/6/20), calls a “stay-in-office-at-all-costs” mentality. Trump learned his lesson, some say, and will change.

No chance.

There is no civility in his bones.

It is up to his Democratic opponents to show the way, to bring us together. David Brooks (NYT opinion column 2/6/20), tells us that “[t]his is the year to run a values campaign, one that champions policies to make America more socially mobile, caring, and interdependent.”

Makes sense. Yes, Republicans will be saying they bring us economic prosperity. Yet at the same time our social and moral prosperity is under threat.

Democratic Presidential candidates must say at every turn: “Trump’s diatribes are the language of hate. We will not act out of fear and derision. We are the party that sticks to our principles. We will build a social and moral prosperity that sustains us and gives meaning to our lives. We are the party of human values.”

The Democratic Presidential candidate that segues to that message will win the votes, along with the hearts and minds of those who take their citizenship seriously, who have civility in their bones.

Let us define civility as the decent behavior of a citizen on behalf of good citizenship for the communities in which they live.

In the USA, civility calls for good citizenship on behalf of our democratic (small d) institutions.

For persons elected to these institutions, civility calls for a dedication to the moral and ethical codes of truth, fairness, and basic decency that support our Constitution.

Our Senators took an oath in support of “impartial justice” at the beginning of the President Trump’s impeachment trial.

Those who voted not to hear witnesses betrayed that oath: the witness, John Bolton, had testimony to confirm the quid pro quo that was at heart of the trial. Those who voted not to hear witnesses breached the impartiality that undermines justice.

Their vote also breached the code of civility.

The breach showed a lack of courage—a failure to choose justice over partisanship and power politics, a failure to speak truth to power, never mind whether the decision might have colored the President’s State-of-the-Union address and tainted his electability and therefor Republican power.

Their breach picks up bad company. In deducing his behavior is tolerable, are we to accept his thousands of lies, derogation of women and opponents, veiled racism, buddying up with Putin, ignorance on issues of global warming and so forth?

There is no civility in this breach of impartiality. Let us hope that America’s voters remember the incivility inherent in the breach of impartial justice at the time of our President and Republican Senators’ re-election.