63°
We, the People adopted a Constitution in 1787 in order “to form a more perfect union.”
The convention that met in Philadelphia had to bridge some yawning differences among regions of the new country, among social and economic classes, and among large and small states that, in some cases, were disputing ownership of the same territory. Some historians have suggested that it was a “miracle” that such divergent and strongly held viewpoints could find common ground, but they did.
The political paralysis in our nation’s capital today that has been caused by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Administration unwilling or unable to work together for the good of the country is a focus of widespread public concern. Too many government leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and too many business leaders on Wall Street, place their partisan political or personal financial interests ahead of the public interest.
Clearly, it’s time to remove the overheated rhetoric that has come to define public debates, whether in the Capitol building in Washington or at town meetings around the country.
At all levels of government, we need to dialogue in a way that is worthy of our great democracy. We need to understand that, in a democracy, people from different views and backgrounds are likely to disagree. However, we’ve got to be able to listen to one another and find common ground for solutions to the nation’s concerns.
Democracy is a messy process that naturally engenders deeply felt passions as people debate the direction of our country. However, we do not need to tolerate language and actions that shut others out of the system or prevent people from taking part in the democratic process. We need to respect the rights, thoughts and actions of others even when we disagree, and look for solutions that serve the national interest.
There is growing evidence that the state of civility in America is getting worse and that it is turning people off from participating in the political process – the process by which society’s decisions are made without violence or bloodshed. In its simplest terms, civility means treating someone else as you would like to be treated. Our political and business leaders seem to be forgetting this in their words and actions and, sometimes, we, the people forget this as well.
KRC Research conducted a survey of public attitudes on civility a year ago and again recently this year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that we have a major civility problem, and they expect it to get worse in the next few years. Most Americans (86 percent) report that they have been victims of incivility in the form of rude or disrespectful behavior while driving or shopping, and six out of 10 admit that they, themselves, have been uncivil.
Lack of civility isn’t confined to Washington, according to the survey. Not only do people find it in political campaigns and in Congress, but in the media, professional sports, schools, the workplace, or in the social media realm. The most civil discussions, it appears, are among friends and family and around the dinner table.
Americans were asked about several factors that could determine their votes in the 2012 presidential election. While most people (92 percent) pick the candidate’s position on the issues as the most important factor in their voting decision, nine out of 10 report that “the way the candidate treats and deals with people with whom they disagree” is an important in determining their choice. They blame the media (35 percent) and political party leaders (27 percent) as the most likely culprits in uncivil speech or behavior.
The Internet is often blamed for creating a hostile and rancorous environment in public debate. John Temple, editor of Peer News, has said that “anonymity on the Internet has so reduced responsibility that comments sections have been dominated by ‘racism, hate, ugliness’ and ‘reflect badly on news organizations that have them.’” All one has to do is read the comments after an article in the local newspaper to understand the truth of this observation.
Most Americans (91 percent), according to the KRC survey, agree that incivility has negative consequences for America, and is harming America’s future, hurting its reputation in the world, and preventing it from moving forward. Two-thirds of our fellow citizens (67 percent) say that they have decided against voting for a candidate because he or she acted uncivilly, and nearly three-fourths (72 percent) “tune out” politics or government because of this disturbing trend. It is a matter for serious concern when people decide not to remain engaged in civic society.
When people “tune out,” they leave to a minority the choice of candidates and issues that will govern us all. If people who “tuned out” and failed to follow what candidates really stand for, or how issues will really affect their lives, we are more susceptible to being influenced by the clever ad or slogan rather than casting a vote in our own, and the public, interest if we decide to vote at all. In the coming election year at all levels, we should demand a political season focused on issues that matter to us as Americans. Let’s reject uncivil name-calling, rumors, and unfounded gossip that hinders our ability to make the best choices for our future.
Sen. Richard T. Moore represents 14 towns in South Central Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Senate. As president of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in 2010-2011, he was instrumental in achieving the adoption of the NCSL Civility Accord by which legislators and legislative staff pledge to embrace civility and bi-partisanship, respecting the rights of those who hold differing opinions and exhibit the kind of personal qualities reflective of a civil society.
Comments (15)
Partisanship in and of itself is not necessarily the problem. Politicians are elected based on the views they express, the promises they make, and our perceptions of their abilities to deliver on their promises. Conservatives will, therefore, push for conservative policies and represent conservative positions, and liberals will push for liberal policies and represent liberal positions. At some point, however, compromises must be made in order for anything to get done. Legislation is proposed, one hopes, to address current problems, and to be somewhat proactive in anticipating and addressing future needs. Conservatives and liberals have different visions of how to solve problems and where the country needs to go. This is as it has always been. As long as everyone is clearly interested in solving problems and is working in good faith, reasonable compromises can be reached and most people can be sort of happy much of the time. Most, sort of, much of. That's as good as it gets.
The problem arises when the interest in solving problems and the good faith are called into question. Or, when "debates" are allowed to be uncivil and fact-free. Or when compromise is defined as midway between the center and one extreme. And that is where we are today.
I voted for Barack Obama, and I support him still, because I agree with his vision for the country. Not everyone agrees, and I understand this. There are real and legitimate differences in how good and reasonable people think that government should operate and function. What I do not understand is why it is more important to defeat Barack Obama and make him a one-term president than it is to actually solve problems, or maintain the full faith and credit of the United States, or get unemployed people back to work, or bend the cost curve for health care in this country, or fix bridges or make sure that states have enough funds to ensure adequate public safety and educational infrastructure. Surely we all agree that these things are important, and they are not free, and spending money on important things is necessary.
I think it is the job of our legislative leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Boehener, McConnell) to stake out the position of their respective caucuses which are, after all, determined by the electorate. However, it is also their job to know where the center is, to know what they are willing to give on, and to _lead_ their caucuses to a tenable position. Say what you want about the Democrats, but you can't honestly say that Reid and Pelosi have not done just that. President Obama has also shown a great willingness, much to the consternation of many of his fair-weather supporters, to negotiate and compromise. So it is really not fair to say "both sides do it" and "the dysfunctionality in Washington". I personally like Pres. Obama's centrist tendencies and his commitment to compromise. But these qualities get completely lost in the current narrative of "left wing socialist anti-colonialist rage death panels" that is so prevalent. It has become the priority of elected Republicans to "make Obama a one-term president" (Mitch McConnell said that), they they seem more than willing to sabotage the economy to do so.
That's pretty uncivil. We didn't elect them to stand in the way of problems.
I'm the .02% and you can be sure that after the Dems soak the .01% they'll continue to soak the rest of us all until the ocean is dry, or until a group such as the tea party pushes back. Gee, less then 2 years ago the dems were salivating over the "cap and trade tax" that was going to kill millions and millions of productive American jobs. Even during the great recession, democrats couldn't resist the call for higher taxes. Jobs be damn! Hip-hip-hooray for more taxes! And now today, every democrat in the country pretends that those party tendencies don't exist, but they do exist, don't they!
You can see these tax tendencies in our town in the demand for more taxes to support an expanded library, even in the wake of a rapidly, technically changing service. And you can see who supports demanding higher taxes from me, and they're all democrats.
AladdinnsLamp, it is not at all clear that cap and trade was going to kill millions and millions of productive jobs. There would surely be some destruction, but at the same time there would be new opportunities and new jobs created. We're kind of a one-trick pony with energy. Incentivistion of cleaner fuels and increased energy efficiency would actually create many, many, many jobs.
I think you misrepresent the Democratic position on jobs and taxes. And of course you completely overlook the fact that President Obama has lowered taxes in response to the economy, and that the tax increases he is proposing are small and targeted to a small percentage of the population who can surely afford it. And one of the major reasons for the proposed tax increase, which will never pass as long as Republicans block it, is to create jobs both by investing in infrastructural repair and upgrades and in funding states to pay for first responders, law enforcement and education professionals. So, you see, Democrats are interested in jobs.
I don't know you, so I don't know your income, but it is not at all clear that anyone is demanding higher taxes on you. But stuff costs money.
Earning over $250,000 a year, well that explains why you don't understand things on a fundamental level.
John B, this is not really a helpful comment. I think you might be surprised at the political diversity of people earning over $250K per year. You would certainly find people who see the world much as you do, as well as people who don't.
Understanding things at a fundamental level is one of those basic traits that typically allows a person to work their way up to earning 250k a year. I happen to be one of those as well. Are you saying that, based on this fact, I too have lost the ability to understand the fundamentals? and somehow socialism will bring me back to my fundamental roots?
james-o, I'm curious-where is the socialism?
'Excellent Job' Senator Moore!
'Please Always Remember Our States Veterans'!
Hopefully you will continue to 'Champion' some of these issues for our States Veterans!
1. The small yearly State Annuity that Gold Star Parents, and Spouses receive for their loved ones that may die in their Service to this Country during a period of time during a Combat Zone has not been increased since 2005! Hopefully the General Court may look at this and ask why? With so much waste in State Government surely the State could find the money to increase this Annuity program for this group of truly deserving people. Maybe even consider a COLA indexing if possible?
2. An increase in the State's Natl. Guard, Military Honors Program Line Item Budget. This would help supplement in the Federal Honors we give to our deceased Veterans. It is not right in the eye's of many that our Veteran's may only receive two Military Members, and a Toy Bugle as an Honored send off, for their years of Service to this Country. This extra funding may help in offering three Members of the Military and a real Bugler in the opinion of many.
3. All Veterans at any Nursing Home in Massachusetts should be entitled to a 10 Day Bed Hold if a Veteran should have to go into the Hospital from the Nursing Home! If people on Mass Health the old Mass Medicaid can have a 10 day Bed Hold, then surely the (5 Day Bed Hold for Veterans) under a Veterans program is just not right! If you stop and think about it, if it was not for our WWII Veterans their may be no United States.
4. More possible State Funding for our State Veterans Shelters, and more Affordable Housing programs to assist our Homeless Veterans population, in Massachusetts. No Homeless Veteran in this State should have to be turned away from a Thanksgiving Dinner, or Christmas Dinner because the Veteran's Shelter budget has been reduced by the State's Budget cutting pen! Or potentially by the State Office of Admin and Finance.
'Thank You' Senator Moore for your hard work and may you continue to fight for our State Veterans, on these issues.
The problem with the 'let's get along' rhetoric is that Democrats only want Republicans to get along with them and agree with them and support their efforts. House Republicans have introduced and passed close to 20 bills that are meant to stimulate jobs. With more people working, the gov't gets more tax revenue. Just increasing taxes on the rich is NOT going to create more jobs and it won't even dent the deficit. Taxes on EVERYONE need to be lowered so EVERYONE has more in their pockets to spend at the stores, that hire the people, that pay more taxes, that keep the wheels moving. Almost 50% of Americans pay NO income taxes and many of them suck on the gov't for all sorts of 'free' stuff. EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game.
And as to civility in everyone's rhetoric. Again, the Dems are the ones that demonize and call names and are generally not civil. But one Republican speaks ill of the President or Nancy Belosi or some other high profile Democrat and all hell breaks lose. The Democrats, lead by President Obama himself, have stoked this fire and have kept class warfare alive and well. And I think the people will speak next November on which way they think things are heading...
Also, I feel compelled to point out that the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes pay state taxes and payroll taxes. I agree that our tax system is convoluted, and that a simpler tax system could be fair and generate more revenue. I'd love to see some of the President's proposals on tax simplification be considered. I will also point out that for many of the 47%, it was the Bush tax cuts that knocked them out of the marginal income level required to pay taxes. This will be "fixed" if the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012. As they should.
grinnell, tax revenues are currently lower than they have been at any time in post-WWII history. This is in part because President Obama has lowered taxes in response to the economic conditions he inherited, and in a larger part because the Bush tax cuts that were introduced in 2001 and 2003. I feel compelled to point out that the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs, as one clearly sees increasing job losses in '07 and '08.
The reason for the Obama tax cuts-$400 million in the ARRA, and a payroll tax cut in the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010, and the most recent payroll tax cuts, is to do precisely what you say-put money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulate the economy. However, the wealthiest people spend proportionally less of their income. Pres. Obama's Jobs bill and his original Payroll Tax Break proposals were to be financed by a small increase in the top rates of the wealthiest Americans, some of whom are paying 15-20% taxes where most of us are paying more. That extra revenue, had it passed, would go to states to hire first responders and teachers who have been laid off during the recession. Those tax increases, remember-just a small increase on a small group of people who can well afford it-would therefore directly create jobs. And that would do what you said-put money into the economy, create more demand, create more jobs, create even more demand, and increase government revenues.
It's a jump start. But it won't happen, as long as President Obama's very reasonable proposals are blocked.
Back in the 50's and 60's, when we had a thriving and growing middle class, when my bar tender grandfather could send his kids to college and my teacher parents could buy a house and send their kids to college, the highest marginal rates were very, very high. Coincidence? I don't think so.
"You Lie" Republican Representative Joe Wilson shouts out during our Commander and Chief's address to the Nation.
Republicans seem to have a history of memory issues.
Will the Republicans pass our President's job creation agenda. And if grinnell would read Paul Krugrman's article on the 0.01% richest Americans grinell would quickly realize that
Given this history, why do Republicans advocate further tax cuts for the very rich even as they warn about deficits and demand drastic cuts in social insurance programs?
A quote from a recent article.
" Well, aside from shouts of “class warfare!” whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are “job creators” — that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy. So what you need to know is that this is bad economics. In fact, it would be bad economics even if America had the idealized, perfect market economy of conservative fantasies.
After all, in an idealized market economy each worker would be paid exactly what he or she contributes to the economy by choosing to work, no more and no less. And this would be equally true for workers making $30,000 a year and executives making $30 million a year. There would be no reason to consider the contributions of the $30 million folks as deserving of special treatment.
But, you say, the rich pay taxes! Indeed, they do. And they could — and should, from the point of view of the 99.9 percent — be paying substantially more in taxes, not offered even more tax breaks, despite the alleged budget crisis, because of the wonderful things they supposedly do.
Still, don’t some of the very rich get that way by producing innovations that are worth far more to the world than the income they receive? Sure, but if you look at who really makes up the 0.1 percent, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, by and large, the members of the super-elite are overpaid, not underpaid, for what they do.
For who are the 0.1 percent? Very few of them are Steve Jobs-type innovators; most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies, 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.
Executive pay, which has skyrocketed over the past generation, is famously set by boards of directors appointed by the very people whose pay they determine; poorly performing C.E.O.’s still get lavish paychecks, and even failed and fired executives often receive millions as they go out the door.
Meanwhile, the economic crisis showed that much of the apparent value created by modern finance was a mirage. As the Bank of England’s director for financial stability recently put it, seemingly high returns before the crisis simply reflected increased risk-taking — risk that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong. And as he waspishly noted, “If risk-making were a value-adding activity, Russian roulette players would contribute disproportionately to global welfare.”
In the spirit of civility, let the Republicans go first and say that tax increases on the the 0.01% of the richest Americans will benefit everyone.
That would be more appropriately categorized as lying.
abcd, I disagree. A small tax increase on millionaires and billionaires was proposed to fund a jobs bill. Money would go to infrastructure projects-creating jobs- and to states to hire more police, fire fighters and teachers-creating jobs. The small tax increase on the small group of people would have put many people back to work.
I'll never understand why something so sensible is so controversial.