A bipartisan call for civility in Congress

January 16, 2005
By Rep. Tim Johnson and Rep. Steve Israel

Last November, at the opening for the presidential library, President Clinton asked "Am I the only person in the entire United States of America who likes both George W. Bush and John Kerry?" The answer is no, but you might not have guessed it from the vitriol coming from both sides of the aisle of late. Accusations of draft dodging and unearned purple hearts often overshadowed discussions of pressing issues during the campaign.

Recent statements from both sides offer hope that we might move past such bitter partisanship to a more civil political dialogue. The Clinton Presidential Center opening saw two Republican presidents join two Democrat presidents in calling for a more unified, bipartisan effort in advancing our country. And President Bush recently indicated a desire to reach out to all members of Congress, even those who opposed him. We should take these examples as an opportunity to move forward to a more civil public discourse.

Without doubt, the country has a long history of partisan mudslinging. Political rivals accused Thomas Jefferson of being an atheist, John Adams of being a monarchist, and Andrew Jackson's mother of being a prostitute. Today's 527s - like the Swift Boat Veterans and Moveon.org - even seem tame by comparison.

Yet, precedence doesn't make the present day mudslinging any less problematic. For one, the practice has led good people, like retiring Louisiana Democratic Sen. John Breaux, to leave the world of politics for more civil occupations in private life and has kept many more from running for office in the first place. Elected office is too important to be left only to those who are willing to put up with personal attacks.

Even more, attack politics trivialize and distract us from the more important differences in ideas that we should be discussing. While there are a number of issues on which the two of us disagree, we would prefer to recognize the grounds for those opposing views rather than trivializing them with caricatures. For example, one of us receives the support of the National Rifle Association and the other does not. But to characterize each other as either a gun- toting militiamen or a gun-grabbing fascist belittles the legitimate disagreements we do have over guns, leaving little room for common sense compromises.

To get beyond childish bickering and address fundamental issues, we are organizing a Congressional Civility Caucus. Our hope is to create a bipartisan group of House members that will strive for civil debate in all our work in Washington , D.C. While we will continue to disagree on issues, as members of the Civility Caucus, we will respect each other's points of view in those disagreements, compromise where we are able, and work to pass common-sense legislation where we find common ground.

Our differences do matter. But philosophical differences need not become personal destruction. Civility in politics shouldn't be restricted to occasional ceremonies where presidents stand together on stage. It needs to include members of congress on opposite sides of the aisle working together every day and respecting each other's differing views. We've got more important things to do than sling mud. After all, we have a country to run.

Rep. Tim Johnson, a Republican, represents a primarily rural district in East Central Illinois. Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat, represents a district on Long Island, N.Y.