|
 Every election cycle produces heated rhetoric but some people in our country think partisan bashing, hate filled comments and bitterness have reached new lows. One political veteran observes that Congress hasn’t been as divided since the 1850s, a period marked by such inability to find common ground that we eventually made war on ourselves.
I read an interesting article about this topic in the Deseret News (Salt Lake City, UT), written by Michael DeGroote. Not surprisingly, civility has been particularly on the minds of Mormons in this year’s election, Mormons having been the object of much incivility in our nation and until recently having 2 candidates running for the office of President.
Michael DeGroote described the now disbanded effort intended to bring our political leaders together. Mark DeMoss, a conservative Republican and Lanny Davis, a liberal Democrat founded the Civility Project in 2009. DeMoss has advised Mitt Romney for 5 years and Davis was White House Counsel under Bill Clinton and worked for Hillary Clinton during her 2008 election run. Together DeMoss and Davis had seen an enormous amount of ugliness from their respective political viewpoints, equally generated on both sides. The Civility Project intended to heighten the discourse by inviting every Senator and Congressman and state governor to sign a simple three point pledge that read:
|
1. |
I will be civil in my discourse and behavior. |
|
2. |
I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. |
|
3. |
I will stand against incivility where and when I see it. |
They mailed a packet to these 585 leaders. Not surprisingly, the firebrand commentator Bill O’Reilly said it was a “dopey” idea. Two years later only 3 Congressmen (2 Republicans, 1 independent) had signed the pledge and DeMoss and Davis disbanded the whole thing. But I liked DeMoss’ sentiment: “I’d rather lose on the high road than win in the gutter.”
The Civility Project had nothing to do with whether or not people agreed with each other. Davis and DeMoss had sharp disagreements on many issues. The aim was that one could be very much opposed to another person’s ideas or behaviors and yet do so with civility.
What might it mean to our community discourse if people signed on to such a covenant? What could it mean in your neighborhood, in your own family? What could it mean in the religious community? Would you sign it?
Creede Hinshaw
creede@wesleymonumental.org
|
