Why politicians must play ball

After the shooting at a GOP baseball practice, lawmakers showed remarkable civility. Here are active steps that can keep it going.

AP Photo
Rep. Mike Doyle, Democrat from Penn., left, and Rep. Joe Barton, Republican from Texas, managers of the congressional baseball teams, reflect on the June 14 shooting at a practice for the Republicans where a gunman wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and two Capitol Police officers in Alexandria, Va.

The attempted killing of Republican lawmakers on a baseball field near Washington has united members of Congress in a way rarely seen in recent years. Many praised each other’s consoling responses. Others vowed to temper the rhetoric of personal attacks that may have incited the June 14 shooting. And some revived the notion of creating friendships across the aisle despite the regular verbal combat over issues.

This unusual moment of common reflection should not be lost. Civility in politics must be an active quality, one that needs constant nurturing. This can counter the disrespect rising in politics that has begun to seep into workplaces, friendships, families, and religious bodies. To uplift civic life, citizens and their elected leaders must focus more on their enduring bonds than their temporary differences over policies.

One heartening example of nurturing civility is the fact that the Congressional Baseball Game was not canceled after the shooting. For 108 years, this sport activity has been one of the few places where lawmakers of different parties could get to know each other as regular folk, building trust that might then open doors for bipartisan cooperation. Other joint activities range from a Senate prayer group to a gym that members of both parties use.

In January, the newest members of the House of Representatives signed a letter of commitment to civility – in large part to counter the ill will of the 2016 elections. The new members vowed not to disparage each other. So far they have tried to maintain that pledge.

At the state level, the National Institute for Civil Discourse has been offering courses on civility to legislators and others for a few years. In the Idaho statehouse last year, Democrats and Republicans who took the course agreed to organize social events to help them go beyond partisan labels and better understand their shared motives for public service. Several legislators asked their staff to come up with bills that could find bipartisan support.

For decades, a visible model of civility in Washington was the friendship of two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Antonin Scalia. Their close ties allowed a rapport that may have softened their differences in court rulings. “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people,” Justice Scalia told “60 Minutes.”

One reason for the success of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, according to scholar Derek Webb of Stanford Law School, was the extensive social interaction among the delegates before and during the event. “Delegates like [James] Madison and [Ben] Franklin themselves suggested that, without this foundation, the Convention may not have even been able to last a few weeks, much less four months,” he writes.

In a survey after the 2016 election by KRC Research, 65 percent of Americans supported the idea that civility starts with citizens – by encouraging friends, family, and colleagues to be kind. If that behavior were to become more commonplace, the type of incivility that often leads to violence would find little place to flourish.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why politicians must play ball
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today