Comity means mutual respect and civility. In public life it means respect for others whose views are different for ones own, and civility in public dialogue. Sadly, in the more than 40 years that I have spent in or around national public life, the loss of comity is one of the most tragic.
Its origins can be traced to many things:
- The breakdown of bipartisan unity created during and after World War II as the principal policy makers died off or left public office in retirement.
- The rise of mass media and the incivility of the 60’s generation. (I experienced this many times myself first as a Marine Corps officer and later on as a U.S. Senate staff member.)
But, I look at two particular catalysts.
First, the remote control device for television. This simple device meant that the “couch potato” of that time didn’t even have to get up to change the channel. Thus, what had been 30-45 seconds of explanation by President or Senator (or their opponents) on a particular policy had to be cut down to 5 seconds if the network was to keep the audience from changing stations. Now, it can be argued that the public is really to blame, since they are the ones changing channels rather than wanting to listen to informed ideas on public policy. Be that as it may, this had four effects:
- Senior members of Congress lost their position of authority with the public even while retaining it in committee assignments; therefore,
- Seasoned and respectful debate by reasonable and intelligent politicians could not be packaged in five seconds; because,
- The sound bites had to be pithy, shocking, angry, confrontational, belittling, sensational or otherwise grab the audience in order to be heard above the roar of household activities. This lowered the level of dialogue to anyone with a title who could arouse the audience – whether accurate, germane, appropriate or not.
- Finally, it broke down the respect and friendship created in the institutions of power as these daily barbs became more and more personal.
The second event was Watergate. This highly partisan attack by the Congress and media of one party on the President of another was unprecedented. Whether it was warranted or not – and there will be debate for as long as American history is written on that subject – the bitterness and hostility that this created in the body politic has never healed. For unlike policy disputes, which are common and encouraged in a democracy, this was a very personal attack totally unrelated to policies and ideas – the first since Andrew Johnson to rise to the level of impeachment.
No matter what one may think about this technology and this event, national public life has never been the same. And, beginning with the 1974 reform Congress, and the swing back to the right in 1978 and 1980, the movement of the Democratic Party to the left edge and the Republican Party to the right edge of the spectrum has created an atmosphere where the old saying in the courtroom “if you can’t beat them on the law . . . try the facts; and, if you can’t beat them on the facts . . . go after their character” has never been more prevalent in Congress and across the political landscape in our lifetime.
So, as we enter what appears will be a very divisive 2012 Presidential Election, I would ask that we demand that those who run for public office apply the following rules to their campaigns:
- Focus the debate on the ideas, policy and goals. Leave the individual out of it. As much as I personally want to see President Obama defeated (because I oppose the vast majority of his policies, philosophy and governance), I am proud that America has elected as President a man who seems to be a loving and faithful husband and father, who has a close relationship with his family, and therefore they are an example to the world of what we want them to see as the American family.
- Tell us what you are for, not just what you are against.
- And, while we love competition and a good fight, never forget that the bigger goal is not just to win, but to move America forward in the world, in our financial well being, and in our social development as a just and free society.
I was reminded of this several months ago in Vietnam when I met with a significant leader who had been a member of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. He knew that I had been there on the other side, but was unfazed by it. As we ate dinner together he related that his best friend had been on the other side of that conflict, too, and that both before and after the war they have remained – to this day – best friends. What an example to me!
Let’s remind those who run for office – and their campaign strategists – that we expect them to treat each other with the American sense of shared destiny even while presenting contrasting visions for our future. Yes, treat others in the public arena both during the campaign and while in office with . . . comity.
