Bipartisanship and civility are two terms that get thrown around a lot when discussing politics. Consequently, I’ve heard them frequently when people talk about the current special session of the state Legislature and the budget crisis.

Although those two words sound the same, they have very distinct and different definitions. It’s easy to get them confused.

Bipartisanship is when two or more separate groups are able to come to an agreement on something. Civility is conducting or expressing yourself in a polite, composed manner.

The reason they can be intertwined is because generally bipartisanship is conducted under civil terms. When one thinks of a bipartisan effort, one conjures up an image of two people or groups coming together in harmony, and harmony normally brings with it civility.

Thus it becomes difficult to discuss them individually, apart from the other, when someone says there is a lack of civility or a lack of bipartisanship in our state or even national politics.

The problem with bipartisanship is it’s only as good the objective you’re trying to reach. The decision by three Senate Democrats to side with the Senate Republicans on their budget proposal several weeks ago, for example, can be viewed as an act of bipartisanship or partisanship, depending on your political affiliation.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was a massive compromise on many issues, such as how long the president’s term would be, whether to have representation based on population or one per state. But it worked because the delegates who ultimately signed the document shared the same basic beliefs and had a common goal.

At the same time, the Non-Aggression Pact signed between Hitler and Stalin in 1939 was a bipartisan effort between communism and fascism. Inasmuch as the two political ideologies hated each other exceedingly, they were able to agree on at least one thing. They both wanted to invade Poland.

If two people disagree with each other on a fundamental issue it’s unfair to expect one of them specifically to compromise for the sake of bipartisanship. Stubbornness and perseverance is a matter of your perspective. You don’t have to agree with them or like their view, but it’s ridiculous to think they are morally obligated to side with you. A common saying in my family is that the art of diplomacy is letting someone else have it your way.

That doesn’t mean, however, that one has to start the Western Front all over again out of intense pride or arrogance. As I wrote in my previous column, you have to decide which battles in life are worth fighting, and politics is all about knowing when to compromise and when to stand fast.

It also shouldn’t be seen as a license to be harsh or brusque when stating an opposing viewpoint. Attacking a belief and attacking the person who holds the belief are not the same. Whether the accusation is factually correct isn’t the point. Civility does not pertain to what you say but how you say it.

This is something I learned the hard way. When I was in college, I loved to debate people on controversial topics that every college student has to give their two cents on as if what we have to say is at all important.

Rather than be respectful, however, I often belittled a lot of my peers for their views. While my beliefs haven’t changed since then, I recently realized how rude I was. The truth is, I might have had better success in persuading others if I hadn’t been so concerned with “winning” the argument.

I’ve tried recently to be more courteous to those whom I debate, even though I occasionally fall back to my natural temperament.

What I found in college, however, and still see now, is people pushing for bipartisanship where it can’t exist. On some issues, there will never be unity, because at their core the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. When two people argue on a matter of principle, where there is right and wrong involved, they both can’t be right. For moral relativists, this can be a hard pill to swallow.

It’s perfectly fine to stand your ground, as long as you extend the same right to the person on the other side of the fence, and you’re not just playing the Devil’s Advocate.

It’s also more effective to be civil in a debate, because people tend to respect those who are respectful of others. It’s easier to get along with someone who has differing views, but is well mannered, than someone who practically shares all your beliefs but is constitutionally incapable of having a civilized discourse on whether to order Thai Pad or Italian takout.

President Calvin Coolidge demonstrated this during the 1924 presidential election. Despite his political differences with his Democrat opponent, John Davis, the non-confrontational Coolidge ran what was easily one of the most civil campaigns in US history. Not once did he attack Davis, or even use his name in any of his speeches. Instead, he focused on promoting his beliefs about the role of government, with “Keep Cool with Coolidge” as his campaign slogan. Consequently he won 54 percent of the popular vote and 382 electoral votes out of 531.

Bipartisanship isn’t something to necessarily strive for, but a little more civility might be a healthy thing, whether it’s in Congress, the state Legislature or even on a City Council.