EVENTS

Date:	Monday, April 30, 2007
Time:	10:00 AM -- 2:45 PM
Location:

April 2007

Civility and American Politics

 

On April 30, distinguished public officials and scholars from the University of Pennsylvania, the Brookings Institution, and AEI explored how incivility affects our political system and our ability to tackle the problems of twenty-first-century life.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-D-Conn.) and House minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) joined University of Pennsylvania president Amy Gutmann to address options for restoring civility in American politics. Other speakers discussed how voters react to the lack of civility in Congress and how Congress itself is hindered by political disputes that seem to take precedent over legislative activity.

This event was held at the Hart Senate Office Building.

Introduction

Pietro Nivola
Brookings Institution

The word civility, from the Latin civilitas, signifies both formal politeness and the "science of politics." The lack of politeness is neither new (the rude exchanges between Thomas Jefferson's and John Adams's supporters) nor uniquely American (the uncivil Question period in the English House of Commons). The bigger problem lies in the science of politics, or the art of managing conflict and reaching compromises. Contrary to conventional wisdom, voters are not turned off by political polarization--voter turnout increases with polarization. Such polarization has also not led to congressional gridlock (note the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act and the North American Free Trade Agreement). There are, however, three areas in which partisan incivility is damaging: First, a firm and dependable foreign policy is difficult in a highly partisan environment. Second, bipartisan consensus is needed to address the long-range problems of the welfare state and entitlement spending. Finally, hyper-partisanship is detrimental to the health of government institutions, especially the judicial branch. What remains less clear, though possibly supported by the 2006 midterm elections, is the extent to which public trust in the government has eroded.

Panel I: The Status of (In?)Civility in American Politics

William A. Galston
Brookings Institution

Although politics is an arena of contestation over ideals that can produce powerful emotions, civility has been and should be an important norm in Congress. In one sense, civility is defined as formal politeness, and it is unsurprising that Congress has rules regulating discourse: how to address fellow representatives and senators, when certain forms of expression go too far, and the like. In another sense, civility signifies ways in which members of Congress show concern for fellow politicians. Members of Congress can still disagree on the issues, but politics can only work well if politicians assume that their opponents are similarly motivated to promote the common good.

Many citizens believe today that politics is less civil than in the past, making it harder for elected officials to address the real concerns of the American people. Many scholars believe that an increase in polarization has caused a decrease in civility, exacerbating citizens' mistrust of politicians, and that these trends have reached a tipping point at which citizens will vote out uncivil politicians.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson
University of Pennsylvania

Comity in Congress has not worsened linearly over time, but rather has ebbed and flowed. Comity signifies that differences between members of Congress are philosophical and not personal, that members perceive their peers as motivated by honorable convictions, and that parties receive fair hearings during debates. Civilized partisanship--whereby politicians respectfully debate alternatives, find common ground, and avoid passing bills through brute force--is appropriate.

In perspective, current incivility problems are not as bad as the nineteenth-century Congressional duels that led to a Congressional ban on the practice in 1838. Indicators such as name-calling and aspersion reveal that spikes of incivility are more common under three conditions: during turnovers of power, such as with the 104th and 110th Congresses, as the minority party struggles to adjust to its new weaker status; in response to highly controversial issues such as contested elections, impeachment proceedings, and nineteenth-century debates over slavery; and when the minority feels abused and the majority feels threatened. Unlike earlier periods, however, today's mass media legitimize incivility by displaying and normalizing politicians' name-calling. Moreover, shows such as Crossfire offer a model of political discourse that allows for name-calling, interruptions, and rude behavior. Politicians thus might be hesitant to engage in meaningful deliberation if incivility dominates discussions.

There are two important House rules for maintaining civility: members should avoid impugning their peers' integrity and calling their peers liars. We need to establish similar norms for congressional discussions in which the public is involved and for our own discussions concerning the nation's wellbeing.

Peter Harkness
Governing magazine

At the state and local levels, incivility is problematic, but recent examples of strong leadership have ameliorated the situation. There are five reasons why states have historically experienced partisan hostilities. First, increasing parity since the 1990s between the once-dominant Democrats and the previously weak GOP in state legislatures has meant more intense debates and closer votes. Second, a study by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that term limits have a negative effect on the quality of legislation. Legislators rush to pass legislation, lack a sense of institutional tradition, and do not have time to make friendships with their peers. Third, state politics mimics federal politics; the local media scrutinize state as they do national legislators, and a climate of distrust makes it hard to pass legislation. Fourth, states now vote on more divisive issues, from global warming to stem cell research. Finally, the professionalization of legislatures, while seemingly positive, has actually catalyzed the decline in civility.

On the other hand, recent examples of strong leadership motivated by the public's desire for civil behavior have changed the tone of state and local politics. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's comment on Democratic "girly men" was followed by a more conciliatory approach and a subsequent bump in approval ratings. Various city councils and state legislatures have instituted retreats for their members to discuss basic legislative goals. The new mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper, has pushed this new brand of leadership. Upon election, Hickenlooper reached out to the mayors of Denver's suburbs, generating a unanimously approved deal to build a rapid rail system in the greater metro area. Clearly, individuals make a difference, and a significant number of new leaders are instituting a more civil style of politics.

Panel II: Fundamental Questions on Civility and American Politics

Amy Gutmann
President, University of Pennsylvania

America's current political system is dysfunctional and can no longer address issues of importance. The problems are linked to the extreme rhetoric and name-calling that currently pervade politics. Examples of political dysfunction include the response to Bill Clinton health-care plan and the Iraq War debate. Debates over Clinton's health-care proposal, which were full of extremist language and lacking deliberation, led to a failure to address the real health-care problem. The Iraq War debate showcased the polarizing rhetoric that has become central to the current political system. Politicians and the public must choose between continuing the current divisions created by rhetoric or economizing differences and developing solutions.

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman (I-D-Conn.)
U.S. Senate

Rhetoric is obstructing many of the attempts to solve the nation's problems, and the lack of civility in politics is a symptom of the disease of partisanship. It is not improper to speak passionately about important issues; problems arise from ad hominem attacks and strict partisanship. In the past, political divisions were not strictly along party lines. Moreover the public is tired of the divisive atmosphere, so fewer Americans now register with a particular political party. The political system is about finding compromise. Politicians should not be beholden to a core group of partisan activists but should instead work together to create good public policy.

The Honorable John Boehner (R-Ohio)
U.S. House Minority Leader

Politicians must work to find common ground, but some issues will inevitably produce opposing opinions and deeply divide the public. These issues cannot really be debated in the current political system because the opposing sides do not truly listen and exchange ideas but instead talk past each other. Political leaders must find ways to disagree on policy matters without being disagreeable themselves. The nation is confronted with many important decisions, but the system of divided government and checks and balances insulates government from radical change. To create genuine solutions to the problems, politicians must work to find common ground.

Politicians must consider two things in making decisions: constituent opinion and personal beliefs. Politicians should take principled stands and act according to what they believe is right; there are some considerations more important than winning the next election.

Panel III: The Broken Branch

Thomas E. Mann
Brookings Institution

The current political system lacks real debate on public policy issues. To remedy this, politicians must address a number of issues. They must accept the legitimacy of their opponents' motives and be willing to engage in debates on the issues. True debate is absent because politicians are extensively rehearsed and unwilling to entertain questions from the opposing side. This contributes to the absence of serious talk in committees and conferences on Capitol Hill. President Bush has also contributed to the current climate by questioning his opponents' motives when they object to his proposals.

America's party system drives many of the problems in Washington, D.C. The increased ideological homogeneity of the parties and sharper political positions contribute to the absence of real debate. The public, however, can instigate change and encourage true debate through their votes.

Norman J. Ornstein
AEI

The Iraq war has decreased the possibility that divided government can produce bipartisan agreement. The common ground between the parties is extraordinary in the areas of health care, the environment, and energy, but the president's agenda and the war have produced deep partisan divisions. Partisanship has started to resemble tribalism, and the ideological center has collapsed. Many factors have contributed to the loss of the political middle ground, including low voter turnout in party primaries and the actions of interest groups. Mandatory voting has the potential to correct the current imbalance by forcing politicians to appeal to the center.

The deliberative process is also highly important, and the institution of "Oxford-style" debates would encourage a greater focus on the issues.

AEI interns Max Corey and Meghan Monaghan prepared this summary.