Civility and openness to dialogue in politics: a very one-sided demand – a commentary

Even though I refer to voices from the (dis)United States of America in the following piece, Germany has not yet reached that point. However, there are initial signs that representatives of the German “liberal democratic basic order” (FDGO) and defenders of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (GG) are being called upon to always remain civil and open to dialogue. One side should be allowed to spread untruths, speculation, and allegations unchallenged, while the other is expected to accept these actions in a “civil” manner.

Is it permissible to call a lie a lie?

It seems as if this is no longer possible. This was evident at the 15th session of the German Bundestag on June 27, 2025, when the President of the German Bundestag Julia Klöckner said, verbatim: “Shouting is not called for here, especially using the word ‘lie’. In a democracy, different positions are simply different opinions and not lies. And I want to make that clear here for this parliament.“

On the one hand, we see the demand for civility: ”Shouting is not appropriate.” Whether heckling is considered rude is, however, a matter of taste. On the other hand there is the claim, namely that positions, even clearly fabricated, false claims, are simply opinions. They shouldn’t be called lies.

It seems that even in the Bundestag we are reaching the American equivalent of “alternative facts” or “alternative truths” that may only be politely contradicted, if at all. At this point, it must be said that I am not concerned with the subsequent call to order directed at Pantisano, a member of the Left Party, but with Julia Klöckner’s fundamental statement. In Trump’s USA, people are now fighting back against this very approach to truth and lies.

Voices from the USA

In the New York Times article from September 20, 2025, titled “The MAGA Movement Is Not a Debating Society” Jamelle Bouie argues:

“Recall that the vice president said, during the campaign, that he would fabricate stories — such as the false charge that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating the pets of their white neighbors — if that is what it took to get the attention of the press. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance said.

Calls for dialogue and discussion — for greater rates of encounter between the professional left and the professional right — make sense when there’s consensus over the character of the overall political order. If we all agree that we are part of a contest of equals — if we take the political equality of all groups and peoples for granted — then we can discuss any number of issues across ideological lines without rancor and needless division.“

For Germany, the passage “consensus over the character of the overall political order” basically means that both sides uphold the FDGO and the GG.

In a guest column in the New York Times on September 24, 2025, author Roxane Gay wrote under the title “Civility Is a Fantasy”:

“But civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy. In the fantasy of civility, if we are polite about our disagreements, we are practicing politics the right way. If we are polite when we express bigotry, we are performing respectability for people whom we do not actually respect and who, in return, do not respect us. The performance is the only thing that matters.

Within this framework, incivility is refusing to surrender to hatred, refusing to smile politely at someone who doesn’t consider you their equal, refusing to carve away the seemingly unpalatable parts of yourself until there is nothing left. To be uncivil means pointing out hypocrisies and misinformation. It means accurately acknowledging what people have said, with ample documentation and holding them accountable for their words and deeds.“

Yes, calling a false statement a lie may seem uncivil, but it is nevertheless correct and necessary. Calls for civility shouldn’t be used as a shield for bigotry and misinformation.

Does that apply to us too?

I believe this absolutely applies to us here in Germany too. When political actors invent and spread “alternative facts,” these statements must be called out as lies. When those same actors do not want discourse, but rather want to spread their opinions unchallenged, discussion is no longer possible; one must disagree—loudly and clearly. Civility then no longer applies. In this case, acting “civil” becomes a hindrance to the truth.

Yes, we need dialogue, discussion, and to an extent, civility – but only if all sides adhere to them and if a lie can also be called a lie.