Civility Survey

 From IW Group: 

A landmark national study released today reveals a striking paradox regarding civility in America: while individuals overwhelmingly see themselves as civil and respectful, only 26% believe society itself feels civil. The research, sponsored by IW Group, reports that half of Americans believe civility has declined in just the past 12 months and that incivility significantly affects the nation’s mental health and social fabric. 

“The Civility Paradox,” a survey of 3,000 U.S. adults conducted May 22 to June 2, 2025, found that 53% of Americans describe society as uncivil compared to 26% who say society is civil. Respondents were more than twice as likely to call it “extremely uncivil” (18%) as “extremely civil” (7%). The research comprehensively examines how civility is defined, learned and practiced across America’s diverse communities. 

“We're witnessing a crisis of civility coupled with a deep distrust of others,” said Bill Imada, Chairman and Chief Connectivity Officer of IW Group, a multicultural and multigenerational communications agency. “The result is great collective suffering, with deep divisions about both the experience of civility today and the solutions that could restore it. Ultimately, we hope groups from different political, generational, geographic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds will come together to talk about how differently they see and experience our society and create a blueprint to realize people’s hopes for a more civil future.”

 The mental health toll

The study shows incivility has become a mental health issue, with 67% of Americans reporting negative mental health impacts from uncivil behavior in the past year. Nearly one in four (24%) reports experiencing these impacts weekly or more frequently, with certain demographics saying they experience negative impacts from incivility on their mental health weekly or more frequently (Gen Z, 33%; White respondents, 27%; liberal respondents, 27%, and LGBTQ+ respondents, 40%). Black and Asian American communities reported greater resilience, with 43% and 44%, respectively, reporting no adverse mental health effects from incivility in the past year.

“The findings highlight what we see in workplaces every day: uncivil behavior undermines both mental health and organizational performance,” said Haruka Kokaze, M.A., Workplace Mental Health Research Associate and Lead Japan Strategy Analyst at One Mind. “Leaders have an opportunity and responsibility to foster cultures of respect and psychological safety that enable people to flourish, innovate, and contribute fully. These outcomes are essential for America’s long-term well-being.” 

Americans encounter incivility with alarming frequency, reporting weekly or daily incidents of incivility both online (34%) and in person (33%). Silence has become a default, with 57% of Americans saying they've held back honest opinions in the past year to avoid conflict, and 35% of respondents saying they don’t feel safe sharing their honest opinion on social media. Only 33% said they would intervene if they saw something harmful online. 

Digital aggression and political polarization

When asked what drives society's decline in civility, respondents in 2,355 open-ended responses pointed to two primary causes: digital aggression through social media (28%) and political polarization (21%). The erosion of basic kindness (17%) and the media's role in amplifying outrage (13%) also emerged as significant factors. 

The research identifies a sharp divide between those seen as “uniters” and “dividers” in society. Teachers and educators top the list of uniters (54%), followed by religious leaders (42%), sports coaches (40%), and community elders (39%). In contrast, federal government officials (59%), television news (55%), and social media influencers (50%) are viewed as the primary forces dividing Americans. 

The “self vs. others” gap

The survey revealed significant differences between people’s views of their behaviors and capabilities regarding civility and their views of others. Respondents say they:

• Take responsibility for their actions (89%)
• Treat others with respect, even when they disagree (80%)
• Try to understand others’ perspectives before responding (77%)

At the same time, respondents say they don’t trust others:

• Only 30% said most people can be trusted
• Only 43% said they believe people are generally kind
• Only 50% say they believe most people try to do the right thing

 “The third-person effect in this research—where people think they are civil, but others are not—is significant,” said Betsy Emmons, Ph.D., Associate Professor of advertising and public relations at the University of Nebraska. “It suggests that we need to help people recognize that most people aspire to be civil, despite our perceptions of others. These insights can spark important conversations.”

 People’s perceptions of others are fueled by negative assumptions, with 90% saying people are quick to judge others, 86% saying people are more focused on winning arguments than understanding and 80% saying people are more self-centered than they used to be. Yet people report confidence in their own ability to be civil during disagreements, with 80% saying they are confident they can ask questions to clarify perspectives, 77% saying they can express their point of view clearly without putting others down, and 66% saying they handle conflict through collaboration or compromise.

 A downward slope with glimmers of hope

The trend lines are sobering: 49% of Americans believe civility has declined in the past year, and 58% say it's gotten worse over the past five years. Looking ahead, only 9% expect improvement in the next year and nearly half expect a continued decline over the next decade. Despite this, 42% of Americans are hopeful that people will treat each other with more civility in the future.

 The path forward: Individual action, institutional support

The study finds that 63% of Americans believe responsibility for civility starts with individuals, rather than institutions, communities, or leaders. The top actions people believe can make a difference include teaching children strong values at home (43%), speaking and listening more respectfully (37%), and practicing empathy even when disagreeing (30%).

 However, the research also highlights the need for institutional support. Americans want schools to teach mutual respect regardless of identity (45%), communities to promote good citizenship (35%), and media to report facts without amplifying false claims (43%).

 Deep divisions complicate solutions

The study reveals significant fault lines across political, generational, and racial groups. Conservatives and liberals disagree on a host of potential civility solutions, with the most significant differences emerging around what schools should teach and which individual actions could help. For example, while 37% of respondents said leaders needed to set a better example for people to treat each other better, 49% of liberals said that was true, while just 26% of conservatives agreed. Generational gaps are equally stark, with 60% of Boomers seeing the decline in civility in the past year compared to just 43% of Gen Z. At the same time, Boomers and Gen X were more likely to say that civility was an individual responsibility (71% and 70%, respectively) than Gen Z (48%).

 About The Civility Paradox

“The Civility Paradox” surveyed 3,000 U.S. adults aged 18-75 from May 22 to June 2, 2025, via a national representation online panel with Census-balanced demographics. The research was sponsored by IW Group, in partnership with Orangefiery, Two Cents, Prodege, and Edwin Wong, General Manager, Research. The study used a mixed-mode research approach that included a comprehensive survey examining how civility is defined, learned, and practiced across diverse American communities, with findings reported at a 95% confidence level.

 About IW Group

IW Group is an advertising, marketing, and communications agency focusing on the growing multicultural and multigenerational markets. Founded by Bill Imada, who serves as Chairman and Chief Connectivity Officer, IW Group has assisted corporations, foundations, governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations navigate cultural shifts and connect authentically with diverse communities through strategic communications, branding, experiential marketing, and civic engagement.

Last Night at House Oversight

Alexis deTocqueville: "When you enter the House of Representatives in Washington, you feel yourself struck by the vulgar aspect of this great assembly."

This video lays out what happened in tonight’s heated exchange in the oversight hearing pic.twitter.com/7QTmpsa1eA

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 17, 2024

Boebert: President Trump underwent testing for his cognitive dissonance pic.twitter.com/jXVHBUChgo

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 17, 2024

Moskowitz’s dramatic reading of Comer’s fundraising email is definitely worth a watch pic.twitter.com/nyPqw3w7l9

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 17, 2024

Gallagher Says Goodbye: "Drink More, Tweet Less"

Many posts have discussed civility in Congress.

 The closing words of Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), just before his resignation took effect:

It’s typical at moments such as these to say ‘‘I have no regrets.’’ This is true legislatively and professionally. I accomplished my mission and got to chair the most significant committee in the 118th congress. Yet I have a lingering personal regret. I wish I had devoted more time to building personal relationships with my colleagues. Our time here is frenetic: filled with overlapping committee hearings and constant fundraising events. It’s hard to carve out time just to get to know your colleagues, to understand their background and motivation, and thereby develop trust. 

Where I was able to do that, with Senator ANGUS KING my co-chair on the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, and with RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI on the China committee, it produced the biggest legislative successes of my 8 years. Put differently, my effectiveness as Congressman wasn’t primarily a function of intellect or op-ed writing prowess and certainly not fundraising, it was a direct result of forging friendships across our caucus and maybe more importantly across the aisle. 

So if there’s a lesson in that for my successor or any of my colleagues it’s after a grueling day of a thousand meetings, still make the effort to get that beer with a member you don’t know that well. Drink more, tweet less. Get to know your colleagues in real life before trashing them on social media. At the end of the day, Republicans and Democrats, we’re all Americans, citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world. Even on our worst day the world is looking to us for leadership. God bless America. 

Tom Cole on Smoking and Politics

 At Politico, Ryan Lizza talks to Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), new chair of Appropriations and a cigar aficionado:

I’m a big believer in open humidors and open bars because they bring people together. I used to tell this to Boehner. I said, “Quit the cigarette stuff. That’s an addiction.” I mean, you’re sitting *makes sucking noises* for three minutes or something.

With a cigar, you’re going to sit down for 30 to 45 minutes, and if you’re doing it with somebody, you’re going to talk, you’re going to have a relationship. You’re going to find something in common with one another. It’s a lovely way to build a relationship and to socialize with people in a way that the cigarette generally isn’t. You never see a 15-year-old kid standing outside a building with a $20 premium cigar, sucking it up. They don’t do that. This is an adult product that leads to adult conversations and can quite often lead to some really interesting relationships and, frankly, good relationships between people that don’t often get along.

One of the worst things Pelosi ever did, and I know she did it for health reasons… You guys won’t like this, but…

I know where this is going.

… When you quit smoking in the Speaker’s Lobby and when you let in the press, you just destroy one of the places where bipartisan relationships are built. That’s how I got to know Barney Frank. That’s how I got to know Jesse Jackson Jr. when he was up here. Sit down, have a cigar, build a relationship. They were smoking cigarettes and in Frank’s case I don’t think he was ever a big cigar guy, but Jesse was.

There’s got to be some spaces where people can get together. We used to do this in the Rules office — one of the best smoking venues in the Capitol. But you’d get members from different generations there. I mean, Hal Rogers is there all the way to freshmen. There are different committees and most people live their life within their committee. I don’t know what the hell’s going on over in Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce until they produce a product and head it toward the floor. But it’s really interesting when you sit down and hear, “This is what we’re doing in Science, and this is what we’re doing in Ag. This is why we have ag crop insurance or whatever.”

If you’re not in those committees, you don’t know. Over a cigar people talk about their work. Even their questions are interesting. Their observations are interesting. It’s an enjoyable thing, but it’s also a great way to learn information, build relationships and frankly in some ways, educate people because most people learn politics by listening to stories. They’re not reading political science books for God’s sake. They talk to real politicians and they hear real stories and that’s interesting.

Civic Virtue

Many posts have discussed volunteering and civic virtue.

Brooks, Arthur C. "America's Crisis of Civic Virtue." Journal of Democracy 35, no. 2 (2024): 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a922831.

Civic virtue is the set of personal qualities associated with a civil or political order. It is a shared set of behavioral norms and basic moral rules that make the order's functioning possible. Tocqueville believed that this undergirded the American experiment with democracy and free enterprise, which could not be guaranteed by laws and coercion, but  only by voluntary adherence to virtuous behaviors such as honesty and civility.9

Some of the Founders doubted whether ordinary Americans possessed sufficient civic virtue for democratic self-government. In January 1776, six months before independence was declared, John Adams wrote fretfully to Mercy Otis Warren that "there is So much Rascallity, so much Venality and Corruption, so much Avarice and Ambition, such a Rage for Profit and Commerce among all Ranks and Degrees of Men even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public Virtue enough to support a Republic."10 In 1788, James Madison agreed that a lack of civic virtue would doom the republic: "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."11 He believed, however, that ordinary Americans were sufficiently wise and virtuous to use the democratic system to choose good leaders, for immediately after uttering these words, he added: "If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."

Civic virtue promotes trust within a society; then we can be confident that outward honesty and civility will be reciprocated by others. This trust is akin to what Robert Putnam famously called "social capital" in this journal in 1995.12 Social capital comes in two forms: bonding and bridging. The former creates solidarity and trust between people who are alike based on a shared identity (the in-group), but not with those who do not share this identity (the out-group). While bonding social capital can create a strong sense of belonging, it does not necessarily foster public trust due to its tendency to foster an "us-versus-them" mentality. By contrast, bridging social capital acts like a glue that holds differing groups together, thus breaking down barriers and fostering trust between people who are not alike.

As political theorist Kevin Vallier notes, trust through bridging social capital takes several forms—social, legal, and political. Social trust refers to the confidence we have that our fellow citizens will generally not take advantage of us.13 This refers to friends and family, of course, but also to strangers in the marketplace. Legal trust refers to institutions such as law enforcement and the courts. Political trust is placed in government officials, elected and nonelected, who are assumed not to use their special access to power to enrich themselves and their friends, or to disadvantage their enemies.

Francis Fukuyama argues that the trust instantiated in social capital (especially bridging capital), mediated by civic virtue, makes voluntary exchange and democratic governance possible.14 When people trust others—even strangers—to be fundamentally honest and civil, they feel more free to carry out economic transactions with reasonable confidence, and can take part in elections with similar confidence that the voting will not be rigged.

This, scholars have found, can initiate a virtuous cycle in which trust in others' virtue stimulates market exchange and democracy, which in turn raise trust. This cycle then raises societal well-being overall. Research by Sonja Zmerli and Ken Newton shows that when markets are backed by property rights, and when social norms encourage mutually beneficial exchanges among strangers, general trust grows.15 In addition, well-functioning markets make corruption less attractive by opening a path to wealth that is more lucrative, and less risky, than efforts to get rich by abusing public office.

The idea that trust promotes capitalism, which in turn further raises trust, is supported by empirical evidence. Analyzing data gathered from eighty countries during the years 1990 through 2020, economist Johan Graafland finds that: 1) civic virtues of honesty and civility reinforce free markets and vice-versa; 2) trust lies behind civic virtues, the rule of law, and thus democracy; 3) civic virtues are positively related to citizens' feelings of life satisfaction; and 4) the rule of law increases well-being by means of trust and civic virtues.16

Brain Drain on the Hill

Many posts have discussed the current state of Congress.

 Peter M. Weichlein at Newsweek:

Would you call an organization that has seen more than 50 percent turnover in upper management over less than six years a mess? I would, and so did a bipartisan group of almost 300 former members of Congress who, when asked in a recent survey to attach adjectives to the current Congress, landed on the following top five words: dysfunctional, partisan, polarized, divided, mess.

Since 2019, almost 250 members of Congress were replaced, either through retirement or election loss, and that number will obviously rise by the time the 119th Congress is sworn in. Already, more than 50 representatives and senators have announced that they are retiring or seeking other offices. That's experienced upper management and decades of institutional knowledge walking out the door.

The numbers are even worse at the staff level, where average tenure right now is less than 5 years. According to LegiStorm, which tracks congressional staff rosters and salaries, 55 percent more House staff members left their jobs in 2021 than in the preceding year. Does the date Jan. 6, 2021, ring a bell?

We're giving current and potential candidates for office every reason imaginable to consider other professional paths. Salaries for current members of Congress have remained unchanged for almost two decades. When one accounts for inflation, salaries have actually decreased 29 percent, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

...


In 2023, Capitol Police opened over 8,000 threat assessment cases based on complaints filed by members, their families, and their staffs. That's an increase of about 400 percent over the past six years—while at the same time, almost 400 officers have left the Department since Jan. 6, 2021.

The State of Congress 2024

  From the Congressional Management Foundation:

A new survey confirms what many Americans already believe: Congress is not doing well. State of the Congress 2024 was based on a survey of senior congressional staff conducted by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF). A large majority (81%) said Congress is not “functioning as a democratic legislature should,” and identified deficiencies in the institution, especially with regards to civility and bipartisan collaboration. However, when comparing this late 2023 survey to a similar one conducted in early 2022, many metrics related to the capacity of the institution to function had improved.

READ REPORT HERE: https://www.congressfoundation.org/revitalizing-congress/state-of-the-congress/2012

“What we found offers both hope and reason for concern,” the authors of the study wrote. “Based on results comparing the 2023 survey to the 2022 survey, Congress may have improved in some important areas of legislative functionality including: access to high-quality, nonpartisan policy expertise within the Legislative Branch; the technological infrastructure; congressional capacity and support; human resource support; Members’ and staffers’ understanding of Congress’ role in democracy; and accessibility and accountability to the public. But there is still a lot of room for continued improvement.”

The report noted that improved attitudes are most likely attributed to the work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, an equally bipartisan House committee that developed more than 200 recommendations to improve the House of Representatives from 2019 to 2023, with many already implemented. The work of the Committee led the House to create a Subcommittee on Modernization under the Committee on House Administration in 2023 which continues to implement improvements and focus attention on congressional modernization.

Among the key findings:

• Civility and bipartisanship were important to almost all senior staffers surveyed, but virtually no one is satisfied with the current state. Republicans (85%) and Democrats (70%) said civility was “very important” to a functioning legislature; and 60% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats said encouraging bipartisanship was “very important.” However, only 2% of Republicans and zero (0%) Democrats were “very satisfied” with the civility in the institution; and no one of either party (0%) reported they were “very satisfied” with bipartisanship. A large number (96% of Democrats and 98% of Republicans) agreed that “it is necessary for Senators and Representatives to collaborate across party lines to best meet the needs of the nation.”
• More Republicans (31%) than Democrats (12%) agreed that Congress is “functioning as a democratic legislature should.”
• Alarmingly, Democratic congressional staff report concern over their personal safety. When asked how satisfied they were that "Members and staff feel safe doing their jobs" only 21% of Democratic staff said they were satisfied with the current environment compared to 61% of Republican staff. Democrats (68%) and Republicans (73%) similarly report personally experiencing "direct insulting or threatening messages or communication" at least "somewhat frequently."
• When asked how frequently they questioned “whether I should stay in Congress due to heated rhetoric from my party,” 59% of Republican staff are at least somewhat frequently considering leaving Congress compared to 16% of Democrats.
• Regarding the capacity of the institution to perform its role in democracy, comparing the same survey question from 2022 measuring staff satisfaction, “access to high-quality, non-partisan expertise within the Legislative Branch” went from 12% “very satisfied” to 32% in 2023; “technological infrastructure is adequate” saw an increase in “very satisfied” from 5% in 2022 to 11% in 2023; and Congress having “adequate human resource support” went from 6% “very satisfied” in 2022 to 14% in 2023.
• Regarding congressional accountability and accessibility to the public most senior staffers were satisfied with Congress’ physical (96%) and technological (85%) accessibility to the public. And similar percentages of Republicans (71%) and Democrats (70%) consider it “very important” that "constituents have sufficient means to hold their Senators/Representative accountable for their performance,” Republicans (50%) are much more likely to be “very satisfied” with the current state than Democrats (18%).

“While the findings overall suggest the absolute need for improving Congress, the positive change in attitudes about the capacity of the institution to do its job demonstrates that we can improve our democracy,” said Bradford Fitch, President and CEO of CMF. “It’s highly likely that the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress and the new Subcommittee on Modernization were the catalysts for this change. This shows that a bipartisan group of lawmakers, acting in good faith and in a thoughtful way, can improve our democratic institutions and provide better representation and service to the American public.”

The survey involved 138 staff, with 55% having served 10 years or more in the Congress. The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit founded in 1977 dedicated to strengthening Congress and building trust in its work with and for the American people. CMF works to revitalize Congress as an institution; promotes best practices in congressional offices; and helps Congress and the people they represent engage in a constructive and inclusive dialogue toward a thriving American democracy.

READ REPORT HERE: https://www.congressfoundation.org/revitalizing-congress/state-of-the-congress/2012

Civic Illiteracy

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation:

A comprehensive new study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation reveals an alarming truth just three years shy of America’s 250th anniversary—the nation’s civic knowledge is badly lagging. The national survey, which examined responses from 2,000 registered voters, also shows that while Americans lack basic understanding of government, trust in business remains strong.

The survey finds more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices, and other basic functions of our democracy. Just half were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws. 

While two thirds of Americans say they studied civics in high school, just 25% say they are “very confident” they could explain how our system of government works. 

“As we approach our semiquincentennial in 2026, this report amounts to a five-alarm fire drill for the civic health of the nation,” said Hilary Crow, head of the U.S. Chamber Foundation’s The Civic Trust®. “While Americans across backgrounds value civic participation in theory, we are sorely lacking in the basic knowledge that translates values into informed, engaged citizenship.”

 Among the major red flags: 

• Only 46% of respondents believe the U.S. is performing well on the vital need to understand our system of government—a gap of 49 percentage points from the 95% who call it important for the nation's success. 
• One in three did not know there are three branches of government. 
• More than half did not know the number of members in the House of Representatives. 

“Put plainly, you can't fix what you don't understand,” Crow said. “Without reversing these deficiencies in understanding how our government works, we are risking the long-term health of our civic culture and democracy itself. That’s why we’re so committed to the National Civics Bee® and other civics literacy programs." 

Workplaces seen as rare spaces of unity and civility

The study also highlights deep wells of unity around core civic values, and an openness to businesses playing a role in supporting citizenship.

More than 75% of adults in the U.S. view political division in the country and government as a major problem. Yet just 19% see significant political tensions at their jobs.  

Nearly half of respondents said workplaces should take the primary role in defusing divide, over government bodies. 

“As the bonds holding our civic culture together fray, places of work stand out as sanctuaries where Americans still connect across differences,” Crow said. “The data speak clearly – people welcome employers’ help in ensuring politics don't infect these essential spaces.” 

Specifically, the survey reveals: 

• More than 80% of respondents hold positive views of large and small businesses alike.
• 82% agree businesses can play an “important role” in bringing people together. 
• 93% would react positively if companies publicly tried “improving our country.” 

As trusted institutions, there’s an opportunity for business leaders to drive significant impact in elevating civics as a national priority – for the current workforce and for the next generation. Only 38% of Americans believe children today are prepared to fulfill their roles as informed, active citizens. Business leaders must partner with educators in steering a new generation toward constructive civic participation. 

“With our social fabric strained, the business community is being called upon to be a thread that can knit us back together,” Crow concluded.

Cox on Civility, Bipartisanship, and the Media

Many posts have discussed partisan polarization and aversive or negative partisanship.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox was a hit at the Gridiron. He closed with more serious remarks:

In all sincerity, so much of what is truly great about America flows from a free press, embracing its sacred obligation to bring facts to light and to tell the truth no matter what. Even when that means choosing substance over clicks. Even when the truth is in conflict with your reader’s biases. Especially when the truth is in conflict with your own.

For the many committed to this ideal, to creating the “first draft of history” as it unfolds around us, thank you. We need you, desperately. Having the courage to tell the truth to each other is a sign that we hold each other in high regard.

Yes, democracy dies in darkness. But it can also die in the light of day if courageous people are not there to defend it.

I currently have the unique opportunity to serve as the chair of the National Governors Association. The NGA is one of the last bastions of bipartisanship. As chair, I launched an initiative titled Disagree Better, with the sole purpose of striving to depolarize our country and help Americans remember how to disagree without hating each other.

Sadly, we have too many politicians that act as conflict entrepreneurs. They have figured out how to use fear and divisiveness to gain power. I’m grateful for dozens of governors who have joined me in finding ways to lower the temperature and bring us back together.

I believe that each of you play an equally profound role in working to heal our deeply polarized nation. Sadly, there are some in your profession that have found that elevating the extremes, presuming bad faith and fomenting contempt are great ways to get clicks. Outrage sells. But outrage will never persuade. And it will never solve our biggest problems.

In a world full of arsonists, we desperately need some architects.

The good news is that there is a market for something different. Seventy percent of Americans — the exhausted majority — hate what is happening in politics and media today. It’s not too late to find our better angels.

I hope that we, as politicians, and you, as journalists, can find within ourselves more of that precious quality of humility — as Judge Learned Hand said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”

And as one of our greatest American leaders said in a speech that helped bring an end to the Cold War:

“What I’m trying to say is if I can change and you can change, everybody can change.”

And of course, that great historic figure was Rocky Balboa, from that classic geopolitical documentary “Rocky IV.”

May God bless you as you tell the story of our beloved country — in the year ahead and always.

Thank you for having me with you.

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.