Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Can a new 'national civility institute' calm political rancor?

George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will oversee the National Institute for Civil Discourse in Arizona, sparked by the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But history shows it faces an uphill battle.

By Staff writer / February 21, 2011

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York in 2008. Clinton and Bush are honorary chairmen of the new National Institute for Civil Discourse.




With billionaires on the left and right funding media giants aimed at ostracizing political opponents, what's the hope for a new National Institute for Civil Discourse being established in honor of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords?

Skip to next paragraph

Arizona Board of Regents member Fred DuVal, a friend of Giffords, first thought of a civility institute during President Obama's speech following the Tucson shootings, which killed six and injured 13 others, including Rep. Giffords. Mr. DuVal told the New York Times over the weekend that its first charge – to define "best practices and corrosive practices" in debate – will be difficult to achieve.

“How do we nurture robustness on one hand and not in any way chill speech, and keep it in bounds that are not destructive to democracy?” he asked. “Will it change the nature of dialogue? That will be a tall order.”

The Internet's polarized media machine, coupled with the Supreme Court's allowance of money as speech in political campaigns, have added a nasty wrinkle to American politics in recent years. In the aftermath of the Arizona shootings, Americans debated the role of rancor in politics and pointed out cases where they thought rhetoric went over the top.

To be sure, there's still debate about whether the nation's polarized political debate played any role at all in the mind of alleged shooter Jared Loughner.

The biggest hurdle for the civility institute, however, will likely be America's unique social contract. Born of conflict with a British king, the country remains at its core "individualistic, democratic, egalitarian, and hence basically anti-government and anti-authority," the late author Samuel Huntington wrote in "The Promise of Disharmony."

"The distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its anti-government character," he continued. "Opposition to power and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power are the central themes of American political thought."

The Revolutionary Era pamphleteers were notable for their nasty tone, and the post-Colonial era press practiced the politics of personal destruction. Thomas Jefferson's Republican Richmond Examiner employed the vitriolic James Callender, who attacked President John Adams as a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

The early-1800s (when political duels fought with pistols were all the rage), the early 1900s, the 1960s, and the current era have all been notable for rhetorical excess and the violence it can spark. Such conflicts, many argue, are central – even critical – to the American experiment.


Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story