Money v. Moderation

A number of posts have discussed compromise and polarization.

John Farmer, Jr. at The Messenger:

The development of social media platforms has put the Citizens United principle on steroids. Such platforms became profitable only when they began to deploy algorithms that use commercial advertising principles to amplify every consumer preference. By applying those algorithms to political speech, they embody the deformities of political dialogue that the Citizens United principle made certain.

But here’s the rub: Once you have generated money by appealing primarily to the most motivated supporters of a cause, and recruited others by demonizing the other side of an issue, how do you then explain to them the need to walk it all back, to compromise? Compromise, after all, is ideologically impure. It is messy and unprincipled. It is also, under our Constitution, essential.

In its own way, compromise points to higher virtue than ideology can reach: humility, the recognition that no set of beliefs has a monopoly on truth, and that no matter how fervently we may believe something, we just might be wrong.

The intellectual humility that underlies our form of government is hard to find in the commercial marketplace, so it’s not surprising that it has been banished from our post-Citizens United politics. Accepting that the Supreme Court is unlikely in the near term to moderate its course and embrace some limitations on the role of money in politics, the issue of our time is whether you can sell compromise.

Is there a market for moderation? The answer to that question may hold the key to the continued viability of our republic.

Dianne Feinstein, RIP

 President Biden:

Senator Dianne Feinstein was a pioneering American. A true trailblazer. And for Jill and me, a cherished friend.

In San Francisco, she showed enormous poise and courage in the wake of tragedy, and became a powerful voice for American values. Serving in the Senate together for more than 15 years, I had a front row seat to what Dianne was able to accomplish. It’s why I recruited her to serve on the Judiciary Committee when I was Chairman – I knew what she was made of, and I wanted her on our team. There’s no better example of her skillful legislating and sheer force of will than when she turned passion into purpose, and led the fight to ban assault weapons. Dianne made her mark on everything from national security to the environment to protecting civil liberties. She’s made history in so many ways, and our country will benefit from her legacy for generations.

Often the only woman in the room, Dianne was a role model for so many Americans – a job she took seriously by mentoring countless public servants, many of whom now serve in my Administration. She had an immense impact on younger female leaders for whom she generously opened doors. Dianne was tough, sharp, always prepared, and never pulled a punch, but she was also a kind and loyal friend, and that’s what Jill and I will miss the most.

As we mourn with her daughter Katherine and the Feinstein family, her team in the Senate, and the people of California, we take comfort that Dianne is reunited again with her beloved Richard. May God Bless Dianne Feinstein.

A Civility Test

 At The Conversation, Robert B. Talisse offers a three-part test for civility:

• First, take one of your strongest political views, and then try to figure out what your smartest partisan opponent might say about it.
• Second, identify a political idea that is key to your opponent and then develop a lucid argument that supports it.
• Third, identify a major policy favored by the other side that you could regard as permissible for government – despite your opposition.

If you struggle to perform those tasks, that means one has a feeble grasp on the range of responsible political opinion. When we cannot even imagine a cogent political perspective that stands in opposition to our own, we can’t engage civilly with our fellow citizens.

The State of Congress

Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service

The Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service released the first annual assessment of congressional performance by a cohort of more than 100 senior and exceptional congressional staff. The research reveals these staffers have deep concerns about important aspects of congressional civility, functionality, and capacity. State of the Congress 2022 is available at: https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/state-of-the-congress-2022/.

"Legislatures are the glue that holds democratic societies together," the report reads. "The United States Congress should be the bulwark against the forces that seek to tear democracy apart through division, violence, misinformation, and hate. Congress should be a place where people throughout the country are represented through difficult conversations and problem-solving that leads to the greatest good."

State of the Congress 2022 reveals bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to improve to best perform its role in democracy. It provides an assessment of congressional performance by the people who know the institution best: congressional staff. The Exemplary Congressional Staff Cohort – or "Congressional Exemplars" – were recommended by former staff and direct experience of the report's authors. The Congressional Exemplars work in personal, committee, leadership, and institutional support offices throughout the Legislative Branch. Two-thirds have worked in Congress for more than 10 years, most are senior managers, and all have demonstrated a deep commitment to the institution of Congress.b

1. There is a great deal of bipartisan, bicameral agreement on many of the challenges facing Congress. The key findings from the research are:Congress is not functioning as it should. When asked if they agree with the statement, "Congress currently functions as a democratic legislature should," only 24% agreed and 76% disagreed. Party affiliation had some bearing on the response: More than three-quarters (80%) who work for Democrats and more than two-thirds (68%) who work for Republicans disagreed.
2. Polarization and rhetoric are making it more difficult to get things done in Congress. Two-thirds (66%) who work for Democrats and more than half (54%) who work for Republicans "strongly agree" that otherwise non-controversial legislative ideas have failed due to polarization among Members. And an almost equal number of Democrats (66%) and Republicans (70%) "strongly agree" that congressional leadership should enforce the rules and norms of civility and decorum.
3. Members' primary role is solving constituents' problems. About half of the Congressional Exemplars who work for Democrats (47%) and Republicans (52%) identified "solving constituents' problems" as Senators' and Representatives' most important role. They were generally more satisfied with aspects of public engagement and accountability than with most other aspects of congressional functionality and capacity.
4. It is very important for Members and staffers to be civil and to work across party lines. More than three-quarters (77%) said it was "very important" to encourage civility and more than half (59%) said it was "very important" to encourage bipartisanship among Senators and Representatives, but only 1% were "very satisfied" with the current state of either. Importantly, a near-equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans shared this viewpoint.
5. Congressional Exemplars suggest areas where there is clear opportunity for improvement. When asked about the importance of certain reforms recommended by the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, four rose to the top as being "very important" to the Congressional Exemplars: reclaiming Congress' constitutionally-defined duties (74%); improving staff recruitment, diversity, retention, compensation, and benefits (69%); reforming the budget and appropriations process (61%); and ensuring continuity of congressional operations in emergencies (61%).
6. Improvement in Congress will likely require building capacity and infrastructure. More than three-quarters (80%) of the Congressional Exemplars said it was "very important" that Congress have adequate capacity and support to perform its role in American democracy and almost as many (74%) said it was "very important" that Congress' technological infrastructure is adequate to support Members' official duties. Yet only 5% were "very satisfied" with the current state of capacity and support and just 4% with the current technological infrastructure.

During the past two decades, organizations that monitor and support legislatures throughout the world have turned considerable attention to developing benchmarks and frameworks for assessing the democratic performance of these institutions. In 2017, CMF began to use this body of work to produce the report State of the Congress: Staff Perspectives on Institutional Capacity in the House and Senate. Now, CMF and the Partnership have expanded the State of the Congress research to include functionality and civility of the institution.

The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is to build trust and effectiveness in Congress. Since 1977 CMF has worked internally with Member, committee, leadership, and institutional offices in the House and Senate to identify and disseminate best practices for management, workplace environment, communications, and constituent services. CMF also is the leading researcher and trainer on citizen engagement, educating thousands of individuals and facilitating better relationships with Congress.

During the past 20 years, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service has been dedicated to building a better government and a stronger democracy. We work across administrations to help transform the way government works by providing agencies with the data insights they need to succeed, developing effective leaders, inspiring the next generation to public service, facilitating smooth presidential transitions and recognizing exceptional federal employees. Visit ourpublicservice.org, follow us @PublicService and subscribe today to get the latest federal news, information on upcoming Partnership programs and events, and more.

•  
•  
•  

• 

CIVILITY, COMMITTEE, CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS, CONSTITUENTS, DEMOCRATS, HOUSE, LEADERSHIP, REPUBLICANS, SENATE, TRANSPARENCY

Twitter Incivility

 Melanie Mason at LAT:

It’s not your imagination. Political discourse on Twitter really has grown meaner in recent years, according to a new study.

The research, published Thursday in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that the level of incivility in tweets by members of Congress increased by 23% between 2009 and 2019 — a change the study’s authors attribute in part to how Twitter’s “like” and “retweet” buttons reinforce the spread of toxic content.

Its findings mark “the first robust evidence that incivility is rising among American politicians on Twitter,” wrote the study’s authors, hailing from several U.S. and Canadian universities.

Researchers examined 1.3 million tweets from official congressional accounts between 2009 and 2019. To quantify the levels of incivility, they used artificial intelligence to analyze the messages and assign a toxicity score from 0 to 100, reflecting the likelihood that someone would consider the text to be rude or disrespectful.

The analysis classified a 2009 tweet by then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) with a high incivility score of 45.1 for accusing a rival of “going AWOL” from his congressional post. And a 2019 tweet by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) — which said another politician was “endorsing infanticide & proudly doing it!” — scored at 47.6.

Toxic House

Lauren Fox at CNN:

Many members within the House of Representatives have told CNN in recent days that they find themselves in a toxic work environment, wrought with bitter exchanges, threats and fears about what the erosion of decorum in the chamber will mean for a body that has still not recovered 10 months after the Capitol Hill riot.

In interviews with more than a dozen members, CNN heard from Democrats and some Republicans who say things are as bad as they can remember, with no sign things will get better soon, and the fears and concerns aren't just coming from members, but their families as well.

Last week alone, Democrats and two Republicans voted to censure Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, for posting an animé video depicting the killing of fellow member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York. Initially, Gosar took the video down, but he retweeted another tweet containing the video just an hour after he endured the highest form of rebuke a member can get in the House.

As he took his punishment in the well of the House, he was surrounded by a group of colleagues rushing to his defense. His leadership never came to the floor to admonish him, only attacking the process Democrats were using.

Ginsburg and Scalia

 At Fox, Christopher Scalia recalls his father's friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of my father’s former clerks, tells a story about visiting my father at the Supreme Court on what happened to be Justice Ginsburg’s birthday. My dad had bought his old friend two dozen roses for the occasion, and Judge Sutton started teasing him, joking that there was no point to a gift like that when Justice Ginsburg had never sided with him in an important 5-4 case.

My father replied, “Some things are more important than votes.”

The point of this story isn’t that my father or Justice Ginsburg changed their votes to please the other, or that they pulled any punches when writing differing opinions – indeed, they are both known for their strong dissents. The point is that they didn’t let those differing and deeply held convictions undermine their dear friendship.

This has already been one of the most difficult and divisive years in living memory; with Justice Ginsburg’s passing, it will become more so.

Reasonable people of good faith will disagree about important issues. You and your friends will likely hold very strong, very different opinions about what course our country should take and who should lead us there.

A healthy republic requires citizens to debate those issues forcefully and peacefully; a healthy society needs citizens to remember that political disagreement need not turn friends into enemies. My father and Justice Ginsburg mastered this balance. We’ll all need to do the same in the difficult months before us.

Incivility and Polarization

Rasmus Skytte has an article at The British Journal of Political Science titled “Dimensions of Elite Partisan Polarization: Disentangling the Effects of Incivility and Issue Polarization.”

The abstract:

Elite partisan polarization has been found to have several potentially problematic effects on citizens, such as creating political distrust and different types of polarization among partisans. However, it remains unclear whether these effects are caused by the parties moving apart in terms of issue positions (issue polarization) or by the rise of disrespectful rhetoric (incivility). In the literature, these two dimensions of elite polarization often appear to affect citizens in similar ways, but typical research designs have not been well suited to disentangling their effects. To determine their unique effects, four studies have been conducted using original designs and a mix of experimental and observational data. The results show that issue polarization and incivility have clearly distinct effects. A more uncivil tone lowers political trust, but increasing issue polarization does not. Conversely, only issue polarization creates attitude polarization among partisans. Both aspects of elite polarization create affective polarization.

From the article:

[The]  results also have normative implications. For instance, among the findings that might be regarded as positive, we see that trust in politicians is affected by the tone of the debate, but issue polarization has no effect on this outcome. The fact that citizens can cope with strong political disagreement without losing faith in their elected politicians is good news for those who believe that issue polarization is a valuable good in a democracy, and for those trying to improve the level of civility in public debate, hoping it might reduce political alienation.

However, the results also show that polarization in terms of policy attitudes is created solely by issue polarization, and that both types of elite conflict create affective polarization. Partisan divides among citizens are largely a function of how much the parties substantively disagree, and making debates more civil will do little to bridge them. Having parties with distinct ideological platforms is thus a state of affairs that cannot be attained without a rise in polarization and animosity among partisans, no matter how civil the debate becomes. To the proponents of the responsible party model – who have traditionally argued in favor of presenting citizens with clear political alternatives (for example, APSA 1950) – this might be regarded as bad news. It also shows that ‘disagreeing without being disagreeable’–a mantra advocated by politicians ranging from Reagan to Obama – is not enough to bridge partisan divides in the electorate. Politics matter, and tensions between ordinary Republicans and Democrats will persist unless the parties agree more on substantive issues.

Committee Civility

Rory E. Riley-Topping at The Hill:

At a time when partisan bickering has become the norm on Capitol Hill...a showing of bipartisanship and civility there deserves mention.

Enter the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, led by new Chairman Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Ranking Member Jon Tester (D-Mont.). At a markup this week, where the Committee unanimously passed nine bills, Moran opened the meeting by stating he hoped to have a “non-contentious, relatively short, but meaningful markup.” He successfully achieved that goal.

Moran also followed through on this sentiment by complimenting Tester during the markup, noting that they both serve on the same five committees, including the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and that, although they may disagree, they nonetheless have always worked well together.

“While a lot of momentous and contentious and historic things go on in the United States Senate, as we’ve seen for the last few weeks, I hope this Committee will continue to be a haven of bipartisanship and comradery and working together . . . sometimes we forget what’s important. But those who served our country served for purposes unrelated to democrat or republican, and I will do everything I can to ensure that this committee remains that place where we put veterans well-above that partisanship,” relayed Moran in his opening remarks.

Moran’s remarks are all the more important given the legacy of his predecessor, retired Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), as well as the recent descent into partisan bickering seen over on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Dingell's Calls for Civility

Jonathan Oosting, Michael Gerstein and Melissa Nann Burke at The Detroit News, March 9, 2017:

In a deeply divided political town, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, on Wednesday pleaded for civil discourse on campus and in Washington during her keynote address Wednesday at the University of Michigan’s 66th annual Congressional Breakfast, held at the Hyatt Regency in D.C.

Dingell lamented that conservative students felt threatened and attacked during a UM panel she attended the day after the presidential election last fall. She said it reminded her of her days as a student at Georgetown University in the early 1970s at the end of the Vietnam War when there were frequent protest marches and constant “stress and tribulation.”

“This isn’t a secret but many don’t know this about me. ... I was president of the College Republicans,” Dingell said.

“Wisdom, discussion and intellectual debate helped me find the truth, but some of the best friends I made and the learning moments I had were on that campus.”

Dingell urged students and alumni not to remain quiet when they witness injustice, such as the recent threats to Jewish Community Centers around the country or the harassment of American Muslims.

“We have a problem talking across divides, because we don’t slow down, listen, have conversations,” Dingell said.

“This is where Michigan plays a critical role. For 200 years, the University of Michigan has brought diverse members of our community together to have difficult discussions, to debate and to find solutions to the problems we face as a society.”

In January 2018, Rep. Dingell spoke in Washington about civility in Congress.