BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON
The weeks and months following the September 11, 2001 attacks were extraordinary, filled with anger, revenge, heartbreak, sadness, patriotism, national unity and spiritualism. We were America again, all for one and one for all. That was the good that rose from the ashes of tragedy. Survey researchers said we had changed forever.
It wasn’t just the high degree of patriotism, but the spirit of civility and common cause that permeated both political thinking and behavior. President Bush threw his arm around a retired firefighter when he visited the twin towers site, reflecting how strongly Americans felt about working together and uniting against a common enemy. There were pledges and promises to keep that spirit alive, to work together and treat each other better. It was even evident in Congress.
The spirit lasted, but not long. We were soon back to normal. Radicals on the left were calling President Bush an evil warmonger who ought to be shot. The name-calling was incessant and ugly. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln may have endured worse, but not many other Presidents took the abuse Bush did. Political discourse degenerated. Gridlock consumed decision-making in Congress. Less and less got done. By 2004, Speaker Denny Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cancelled the regular bipartisan civility retreat. They saw no point in it.
A few years later, Mark DeMoss, an Atlanta businessman, partnered with Washington political consultant Lanny Davis, on a project to promote civility in public life, by asking the 585 Members of Congress and 50 governors to sign a simple pledge promising to be civil in public discourse. They shut down the project. Only three—Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and House members Frank Wolf of Virginia and Sue Myrick of North Carolina had signed.
Then in January of 2011, shots rang out in a shopping center in Tucson, AZ and Congresswoman Gabby Giffords fell to the ground badly wounded, while six others near her died. Throughout the nation, there were clarion calls for civility. Several organizations launched new campaigns. The Congressional Institute, on whose board I serve, had already planned a project in conjunction with the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School, the Aspen Institute and others, and it picked up steam after the shooting. The University of Arizona quickly raised a million dollars for its project.
But the fervor again gave way to political behavior even worse than before. This year has been marked by some of the worst brinkmanship, name-calling, partisan rigidity and intolerance in years, and at a time in our history when circumstances demand so much better from us.
The observance of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 may renew the spirit of civility. If it does, it won’t last long, either. It is like the Christmas spirit that grabs us each December and the New Year’s resolutions that soon follow. How long does it stay with you? Middle of January?
Maybe the anniversary inspired filmmaker extraordinaire Ken Burns, who is expected to call for a national discourse on civility during a discussion of his new Public Broadcasting System series, ‘Prohibition,’ Oct. 3rd, at the National Press Club.
I am not sure what he has in mind, but I would like to offer him a few suggestions.
First, he should frame the issue. Civility is a vague term and in the minds of the naysayers, it is synonymous with weakness. To others it means compromise in the negative sense, the willingness to give in on principle in order to reach an agreement. To others it means giving up a Constitutional right to say whatever you think with whatever language you choose to say it.
Civility is, of course, none of the above. It is not weakness. It takes more courage to be and act civilly than not. Nor is civility synonymous with compromise. I would be okay with that because compromise is a noble undertaking that, again, takes more courage than brinkmanship. But the two are distinct.
Civility is a form of basic political, and, therefore, human behavior. It is a frame of mind. Compromise is a decision-making process. It more often than not results from civility, but they are not Siamese twins.
Neither does civility take anything away from the Constitution; it complements it and fulfills one of the fundamental goals of our Founding Fathers in their quest for self-rule. The First Amendment, as someone—I don’t remember who–once observed, gives all of us the right to make damn fools of ourselves but that doesn’t mean we have to. Those who choose not to are usually those who practice civility.
After he has framed the issue, Burns must define the problem. You can’t treat incivility without facing down all of its enablers: the people, the press and the politicians are all part of the problem, trying to surpass each other like gerbils in an exercise wheel.
Politicians practice their craft in a political culture dominated by extremes. There are a number of reasons for the disfigurement of our political culture, from badly gerrymandered political districts to the torrential flow of political money to the influence of the new media.
It compels them to behave in a manner which appeals to extremes, pushing the envelope of propriety, ethics and civility farther and farther to market themselves in an ever-crowded marketplace.
And the media reward them for it. The media, particularly the new media with its culture of anonymity, have become the enablers of bad behavior because they profit from it. They thrive on it; they exploit it and excuse it as something of innocent entertainment value, when in fact its destructive power is not innocent at all and extracts a heavy price.
The American people are enablers as well. Cherie Harder, President of The Trinity Forum cited a Weber Shandwick survey that said 65 percent of Americans consider incivility a major problem and most think it is getting worse. She said “the tone of civility is causing Americans to tune out from the most fundamental elements of our democracy… The forum is doing a presentation in civility Monday, the 19th. Information is on their website.
Other survey research confirms that most people believe civil behavior is the only way to restore confidence in government; that the lack of civility is responsible for the failures of government, and 85 percent of Americans believe politics is becoming increasingly uncivil.
Yet while the sentiment is overwhelming, the response is very underwhelming. The public tolerates political behavior like they do the shenanigans on reality television shows. They must demand and enforce higher standards and quit rewarding politicians and media carnival barkers who denigrate their system of governance.
We have all created this mess and now we must help clean it up.
I’ve finagled tickets to the Burns event from a good friend. I’ve waited a long time to find out how this movie ends.
Hooray!! and a Hip Hip as well. If in the corporate world I had behaved as some of our politicians do in public (the sneers, the name calling, the ranting and derision), I would have been asked to step down. Perhaps it is time the public thinks in the same terms.