Nearly three months ago, a gunman in Arizona killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Within hours, and with no evidence, Republicans and conservatives, especially tea party activists, were blamed. They didn’t pull the trigger, the criticism went, but they certainly had encouraged a violent “climate” with “vitriolic” words, deeds and symbols.

That was nonsense. But if the criticism wasn’t just using a tragedy to score political points, if Democrats and liberals truly believed what they were saying, no doubt they would have become models of civility. Or at least attacked their own if they broke the new rules.

Hardly.

Last week, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was caught giving fellow Democrats talking points on the federal budget fight. “I always use the word extreme,” he said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

Leftist comedian/pundit Bill Maher has taken to referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a “dumb t—-.”

In Wisconsin, in reaction to Gov. Scott Walker’s attempt to limit collective bargaining, “dead man” chalk outlines with his name on them appeared outside the state Capitol. Inside, after the Assembly passed the bill, an irate Democratic lawmaker turned to a female GOP colleague and shouted, “You are f—— dead!” He later apologized.

Aside from NOW’s clucking at Maher — mostly the group was upset at having to rise to Palin’s defense — there wasn’t much made of this “vitriol.” So, all the post-Arizona venting was just a cheap attempt to silence political opponents.

Knowing all that, I was reluctant to attend last weekend’s conference “Can We Talk? A Conversation About Civility and Democracy in America” at the National Constitution Center. But I went, and I’m very glad I did.

First, the sessions I saw demonstrated what I’ve come to appreciate about the Constitution Center: It tries to present as many sides of an issue as possible. Is there a perfect balance of right, left and center every time? No, but the effort is there.

Second, I was reminded of the basic decency, common sense and concern for the country’s fiscal future that is at the heart of the tea party movement. That was all courtesy of the Seattle area’s Keli A. Carender.

The 31-year-old blogger and activist used to teach math to inner-city adults. Now she works full time for Tea Party Patriots and State Budget Solutions, focusing on legislative research, government transparency, and helping states fight the worst aspects of the health reform law.

In the conference’s opening minutes, the Oxford-educated veteran of comedy improvs politely, yet directly, put the day’s topic in perspective.

“It’s hard to believe we’re talking about civility now after I and others in the tea party have been maligned and impugned,” she said. “I’ve been called a racist many times.”

As have other tea party activists, including her parents, Carender told me in a phone interview last week.

“My parents, when they were younger, threw themselves into the civil rights movement,” she said. “Now people try to call them racists?”

How does that differ from calling supporters of health care reform socialists?

“When you call someone a racist, you’ve labeled them an immoral person, as a person who literally hates someone because of the color of their skin,” she said.

“Call someone a socialist, and you imply that they believe in a certain set of philosophies and policies. You’re implying those policies are bad and dangerous, sure, but that doesn’t say anything about the person’s character, what’s in their heart, or how they treat other people.”

She has two simple rules to live by in her activism: Govern yourself first. Even if a policy or issue gets you angry, you won’t win anyone over with insults or attacks.

“Shrill gets attention, but it turns people off,” she said at the conference.

Second, govern your side.

“If people are calling for civility, but not calling out the uncivil behavior on their own side, they have no credibility with me,” she told me.

At its worst, she sees the civility movement as a distraction from issues.

“We can’t put all our energy and resources into fighting smears,” she says. “We have to put it toward affecting the change that we want to see.”

Last week, Carender was working to change federal budget policy. She and other tea partyers were backing rallies urging the GOP not to settle for less than $90 billion more in budget cuts this year.

Isn’t that uncivil, refusing to compromise?

“I think $90 billion is a compromise,” she replies, noting that the annual deficit is more than $1.3 trillion. “We’re flying off a cliff and $90 billion is nothing.”

“We’re not trying to play the politics of fear or gin up a crisis,” she says. “This is really what’s happening.”

Well put. Even civil.

Kevin Ferris is a columnist with the Philadelphia Inquirer.