RON WOOD The Un-Civil War is an angry mob

The real Civil War erupted in a nation already divided. In that contest, the battle was over ideas and practices such as “all men are created equal” and whether we would be one nation or two.

The modern contest isn’t being fought with bullets but with angry words and shouting mobs. The common culture seems to be deteriorating into tribes who throw sticks and stones (verbal bombs) at each other but can’t seem to get down to the nitty-gritty: what are we

arguing over?

To see a person or a group of people behave in an uncivil manner, yet claim to be educated or intelligent, is a contradiction. Unruly people are a law unto themselves. A mob demanding justice is lawlessness in action. A lawless person rejects any authority but his own.

The phrase often used but seldom understood is “the rule of law.” This can take many forms. America’s kind of social order is based on self-rule; not heavy, topdown law enforcement. The liberty we enjoy doesn’t (easily) disintegrate into chaos. Why? Because family and church have instilled in us traditions of dignity and respect — a desire for law and order. In America, we also have an effective police presence with a relatively fair system of justice.

Our police don’t act like an army (or, at least, they should not). An army can impose its rule by force of arms. If you don’t surrender, you get killed. The police enforce the law by insisting on respecting civil authority. If you don’t obey, you get arrested, fined, go before a judge, or to jail.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia’s police whip women publicly if they break their strict dress codes. In most Middle Eastern countries, sharia law from Muslim religious culture imposes heavy penalties against theft, adultery or blasphemy. If you steal, your hand is cut off. Religious rule through civilian institutions is backed by brutal force.

I like self-determination better, don’t you? I don’t want thought-police or clothing-police enforcing rigid external rules. But some order is required, some commonly-held code of conduct.

I prefer the American system of law where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you are found guilty, the penalty doesn’t involve stoning or amputation. Our legal system has justice and mercy mixed together — humane treatment of prisoners — pardons, parole and early release.

In America, we have a precious privilege called “freedom of speech.” There is a long tradition of respectful public debate or noble discourse. Or, there used to be. While the barbed political cartoons of America’s past would rival any to be found today in the “New Yorker” magazine, political opponents behaved honorably. Their followers didn’t threaten, bully or harass one another. They didn’t hound their opponents, run them out of restaurants or kick them in the streets. They didn’t send mobs to demolish automobiles or picket private residences.

Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill would fiercely fight over liberal versus conservative policies, then they’d sit down together to a convivial beer. Debates in the Senate were prefaced with, “My honorable opponent says…” Different viewpoints were voiced, heard, and the merits were respectfully discussed. Ideas were aired while inflammatory rhetoric was low or missing. There was more light, less heat; better conclusions.

To that point, I say “Truth, when examined, grows stronger. Error, when examined, grows weaker.” If we never seriously debate conflicting ideas, we’ll stay in enemy camps lobbing mortar shells of invective but never achieving a peaceful armistice or mutual understanding. When accusations are repeated by powerful media, the amplification deafens us all.