08.06.10
Mr. President: Bring us together
The Hill
By Lanny Davis
Dear Mr. President:
What is the best strategy for the fall congressional campaign?
I urge you to reject the conventional-wisdom advice to wage a partisan campaign, attacking the “just say no” Republicans and blaming a lot of our problems on the prior administration.
Rather, I urge you to return to your roots — to the theme that led my own oldest son to support your candidacy way before you announced it.
You articulated that theme in your 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech:
“The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states. ... But I’ve got news for them, too.
We worship an ‘awesome God’ in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. ... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
Then, just four years and six months later, you said in your inaugural address:
“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics.”
Especially, I urge you to re-read the comment made by the 1968 Republican president-elect, Richard M. Nixon, one day after his election:
“I saw many signs in this campaign. Some of them were not friendly. But the one that touched me the most was — a teenager held that sign — ‘Bring Us Together.’ And that will be the great objective of this administration at the outset, to bring American people together.”
Unfortunately, it wasn’t long after uttering them that Nixon defaulted to his partisan instincts and advisers and ignored these words.
I have been actively involved in politics since that year of 1968 — a year when I couldn’t imagine America ever being divided more bitterly between left and right. Yet I have never seen a higher level of partisanship, bitterness and vitriol between the two parties in Washington than that which exists today.
Last year a conservative Republican and evangelical Christian, Mark DeMoss, approached me, a liberal Democrat, to join him in “the Civility Project.” A couple months ago, we sent out personally addressed letters to 535 members of Congress and 50 governors asking all of them to sign a civility pledge — found at www.civilityproject.org — asking nothing more than to vow to engage in respectful debate.
As of a few weeks or so ago, only one member had signed: Rep. Frank Wolf (R) of Northern Virginia.
Mr. President: I think you can prove that most of the American people want their politicians to sign this pledge by signing it yourself and challenging all Democratic and Republican candidates to do likewise. You can and should embrace the words of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) this past Sunday on CNN: “If we keep yelling at each other ... we will go nowhere together.”
Your campaign slogan should be: “It’s time to get back into the solutions business.”
And to do so, you should invite to the White House, immediately after Labor Day, center-left and center-right members of Congress committed to finding consensus solutions on three issues: jobs, energy independence and immigration reform.
You should invite thoughtful conservative Republicans who have a history of working with Democrats to find solutions, such as Sens. Graham (who I don’t believe really will want to amend the 14th Amendment to bar citizenship of children of illegal aliens); John McCain (Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.); and such House Republicans as Wolf, Mike Castle (Del.), Chris Smith (N.J.) and Connie Mack (Fla.).
You can find good conservative ideas and good liberal ideas, both progressive and pro-business and pro-market, which would bring centrist first steps to these three crucial problems, with a chance to pass legislation in all three areas before November.
Yes, you can.
If you do, I believe it is both the right politics and, most of all, right for the country.
07.05.10
Only One Ready to Play Nice
The New York Times
By Janie Lorber
A group seeking civility in politics has found that among all sitting governors and members of Congress, only one is willing to promise decorum in his political discourse.
Just before the Memorial Day recess, an unlikely pair — Mark DeMoss, a publicist who was an adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, and Lanny J. Davis, who served as an aide in the Clinton White House — wrote letters asking the 585 elected officials to sign a civility pledge.
The letters, personalized and sent directly to each of the offices, asked officials to commit to this pledge: “I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior. I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. I will stand against incivility when I see it.”
More than a month later, only one lawmaker — Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia — has signed.
Only two others have even acknowledged the request, including one candidate for a House seat in Florida who signed the pledge online. The office of Gov. David A. Paterson of New York responded with a letter saying it would “seriously study the issues.”
“It was almost as if I’d written about the plight of turtles in upstate New York,” Mr. DeMoss said Monday. “Almost as if they didn’t read what I had written. And that’s it so far.”
Mr. DeMoss and Mr. Davis started CivilityProject.org in January 2009 in an effort to put an end to the kind of personal attacks that have made some recent campaigns so ugly.
Mr. DeMoss, an evangelical Christian, said he was particularly concerned by the criticism of the religious beliefs of Mr. Romney, a Mormon, and President Obama, whom some right-wing activists have falsely accused of being a Muslim.
Now, with Washington perhaps as polarized as ever and another campaign season well under way, Mr. DeMoss said he was dumbfounded by the silence.
“This ought to be a lot easier than signing a something like a no-tax pledge that members are often asked to sign,” said Mr. DeMoss, who was invited to the White House to discuss the project with Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “My hope was to bring on pressure from constituents.”
Each elected official who signs the pledge is identified on the CivilityProject.org Web site.
Mr. DeMoss said that America’s founders may have been just as blunt-spoken, but today bloggers and 24-hour news outlets fixate on distasteful behavior, tainting the public perception of politics and elected officials and ultimately deterring political engagement.
A recent poll by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College and Zogby International found that the majority of Americans say they are “turned off” when politics become “rude and nasty,” and 95 percent say civility in politics is important for a healthy democracy.
Given those numbers, “I thought there would be a near unanimous consent that it’s worse than it should be,” Mr. DeMoss said.
Read the this article on NyTimes.com.
06.15.10
Science, Religion and Civil Dialogue
The Huffington Post
By Alan I. Leshner
I was not surprised by the findings of a recent Rice University survey that half of the top 1,700 U.S. scientists described themselves as religious. The scientific community, like any other group, includes people with many world views, from evangelicals to atheists.
Of course, some people in sociologist and survey director Elaine Ecklund's study group, as with the general population, described themselves as atheists. Yet even within that category, many also identified themselves as "spiritual." This may explain why, in 275 lengthy follow-up interviews Ecklund found only five scientists who said they actively oppose religion.
Let's hope that Ecklund's unusually comprehensive assessment will help overturn the myth that scientists reject spirituality, or that science and religion are inherently incompatible.
That myth persists among scientists and religious believers alike. In 2009 study by the Pew Research Center, 61% of Americans said that science poses no conflict with their own faith. Nonetheless, 55% of those same respondents said they view religion and science generally as "often in conflict." Evolution, for instance, has divided Americans since 1859, when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species."
There is a better way, which will be demonstrated June 16 when leading scientists and a respected Christian minister engage in a free, public dialogue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
A successful engagement effort does not require a specific outcome. So, civil discourse will be the only objective for the upcoming event, convened by the association's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion program. The association also takes no position on whether religion is good or bad.
Americans have long recognized the power of scientific engagement as a neutral tool for improving foreign relations. Science diplomacy in the 1970s resulted in new cooperation with China and the Soviet Union. Similarly, the current administration launched a major science diplomacy effort, naming science envoys to predominantly Muslim countries in North Africa and Southeast Asia.
But within our own borders, we have tended to overlook another important form of diplomacy that could promote civility by easing political and religious polarization. Increased civil dialogue between scientists and religious leaders suggests a path toward common ground, whether the topic is human origins or climate change.
The need for such diplomacy is clear as U.S. science educators and some in the religious community increasingly find themselves at loggerheads over issues where science can appear to conflict with long-held beliefs. In state after state, those who oppose evolution are introducing legislation to undermine science education. Revised Texas science standards, for example, fail to mention common descent or the age of the universe. These omissions are unfortunate. Understanding evolution is central to science literacy, which in turn affects students' job prospects and American competitiveness.
Climate change skeptics also are challenging science curricula. The Texas standards, similar to a new Louisiana bill and proposals elsewhere, now require students to learn "different views on the existence of global warming." Such attempts to weaken K-12 science education are troubling and perplexing. The science of climate change is clear, and a basic tenet of many religions is the call to be good stewards of the planet.
Various groups are working to mend this rift. For example, the Scientists and Evangelicals Initiative in 2007 sent religious leaders and scientists to Alaska to see receding glaciers and talk with people affected by climate change. Last year, the group also spoke with U.S. policy-makers about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The June 16 event at AAAS will bring David Anderson, founder and lead pastor of Bridgeway Community Church, together with scientists such as William Phillips, a 1997 Nobel Laureate in Physics, astrophysicist Howard Smith of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and paleontologist Rick Potts of the Smithsonian Human Origins Program.
Tensions at the intersection of science and society can promote a pervasive atmosphere of disrespect that damages the fabric of our culture: A recent Zogby International survey revealed that Americans overwhelmingly feel "fed up with incivility." In response, Mark DeMoss, a Republican and evangelical Christian, teamed up last year with Lanny Davis, a liberal Jewish Democrat, to launch the Civility Project, which calls on us to be respectful despite our differences.
We should all follow their example. Both medical and technological advances and high-quality science education improve human welfare and drive economic progress, creating jobs and better lives for our children. Civil dialogue offers a way for the American public and the scientific community to collaborate more productively on behalf of our communities and our nation.
You can also read the article here.
more news >> |
