GOOD MANNERS ARE SMART POLITICS

Good manners are smart politics
Former President Gerald Ford, left, introduces Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Robert Bork, center, in 1987, as Senator Bob Dole looks on. Bork s nomination, by President Reagan, met with heated opposition. File 1987/ associated press Former President Gerald Ford, left, introduces Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Robert Bork, center, in 1987, as Senator Bob Dole looks on. Bork’s nomination, by President Reagan, met with heated opposition.

By John E. Sununu Boston Globe    January 17, 2011

IN MARCH of 1997, for a few shining days, ground zero in the campaign to restore civility to American politics was the Bi-Partisan Congressional Retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Perhaps not an event seared into the memory of all Americans, but for members of Congress it was a unique opportunity to meet colleagues and their families outside a political setting. The weekend, sponsored by several DC think tanks, was a modest attempt to improve decorum on the House floor.

Hershey wasn’t the first organized attempt to “change the tone’’ in Washington, and it certainly wasn’t the last. Republicans vowed to do it as part of the Contract with America in 1994, just as Democrats promised in 2006. The same goal was a campaign centerpiece for George Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. Speaking as a Hershey “graduate,’’ I am all for civility. Who isn’t? But as America’s professional scolds embark upon another “change the tone’’ campaign, they should keep a few things in mind.

1. Be careful about longing too wistfully for the civility of yesteryear. Public discourse marking the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 1960s, the Vietnam-era confrontations of the 1960s and 1970s, and the Iran-Contra and Bork hearings of the 1980s are far from perfect examples of thoughtful moderation. Serious differences in ideology provoke deep emotion. We do today’s debates an injustice if we mischaracterize the tone and tenor of those past.

2. Public figures who blame the media are avoiding their own responsibility. The media love coarse debate because coarse debate drives ratings and ratings generate profits. Unless the TV producer happens to be William Shakespeare, an argument is more interesting than a soliloquy — and there will never be a shortage of people willing to argue on TV. Politicians wishing to set a better tone should have the discipline to avoid televised cage matches. Members of the media wishing to set a better tone should skip to item 4, and read it twice.

3. Party control of Congress and the White House matters. It’s counterintuitive, but the most divisive arrangement is when the same party controls both Congress and the presidency, a situation encountered in eight of the past 10 years. With government unified under a single party, the minority has the least possible incentive to cooperate with the majority. This fact becomes clear when you consider the alternative: Democrats in the minority under President Clinton had incentive to work with Republicans because their Democratic president would get credit for signing bills sent to his desk. If attempts to work with the majority went awry, the president would be there to veto unwanted legislation. The same situation applied to the Republican minority under President Reagan. Regardless of substance, it was smart politics.

4. Remember the golden rule. (Not the one about silence — this is politics, after all.) Never — ever — question the motives of your opponent. I first heard this point made by Mickey Edwards, a former congressman from Oklahoma, at an orientation session for newly elected Congress members in 1996. He repeated it several times, and for good reason. Questioning a person’s motives is a frontal attack on their integrity, implying that they possess some nefarious intention. Too often the cavalier suggestion is corruption — that someone is taking an action in return for special treatment, political payback, or money. Unfortunately, politicians are usually the first to forget that if you assume someone else is acting in bad faith, they will do the same to you. Questioning motives poisons the well.

5. Lastly, recognize that civility in no way requires an absence of partisanship. Senators Phil Gramm and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were passionate ideologues from opposite sides of the spectrum. But both typically made their arguments politely and with comity. Perhaps that is why they were frequently part of the negotiating team when final compromises were struck on important legislation.

In the wake of the retreat at Hershey, a 1998 review of behavior on the House floor concluded that “name calling, aspersion, and use of the word lie and its synonyms’’ all declined. As it turns out, it is much more difficult to be rude to someone when you’ve dined with their family. This modest success was reflected nicely in the remarks of a member of Congress on the floor who, having succeeded in eliciting the retraction of another member’s offending words, noted “I thank the gentleman for making the correction. . .that saves us a trip back to Hershey.’’

Maybe after 14 years, a trip back to Hershey wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

John E. Sununu, a guest columnist, is a former US senator from New Hampshire.

Share

Leave a Reply

Search All Posts
Categories