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.
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.
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.
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.
Civility Project.org Asks Governors & Members of Congress to Take The Civility Pledge
“Americans are fed up with incivility in politics,” according to a recent USA TODAY story about a new study by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College and a survey about political civility conducted by Zogby International.
CivilityProject.org was launched in January 2009 as a movement of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans seeking to alter the increasingly uncivil tone in our country in general and politics in particular.
Now we have mailed a letter to every U.S. governor and member of Congress asking them to take a simple, 32-word Civility Pledge. We’ll post the results on this website for constituents, media and the general public to follow. For those who sign this pledge, we thank you in advance for committing to being part of the solution. As for any of our elected leaders who don’t subscribe to these three personal commitments, we’d like to hear why.
As we approach important mid-term elections this fall and a presidential election in two years many of us are hoping we can conduct important national business with civil discourse and debate rather than by screaming and shouting.
Click here to read the full letter to governors and members of Congress.
WASHINGTON — Americans are fed up with incivility in politics.
A new study by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College finds that Americans overwhelmingly say civility is important to democracy and possible to achieve, even when people disagree.
Most don't see those qualities at work in Washington. More than two-thirds in a poll taken for the study said Americans "should be ashamed of the way elected officials acted" during the recent health care debate. Half said the tone of politics has declined since President Obama was elected; just 10% said it has improved.
More than three in four agreed with the statement: "Right now, Washington is broken."
"Americans believe in civility … and in compromise; they believe in middle-ground solutions," says Daniel Shea, who directs the center at Allegheny College, in Meadville, Pa. "Those are two issues that Americans believe are not well-reflected in the media — in talk radio, television programs, the Internet."
Those surveyed were split over whether it was more important for a politician to be willing to stand firm in support of principles or be able to compromise to get things done.
When asked about seven specific issues, however, solid majorities said elected officials should find compromise solutions on all but one of them, abortion. About two-thirds thought compromises should be found on immigration and climate change legislation, two of the most contentious issues now being debated.
There were significant differences by ideology, however. Liberals by 59%-36% favored the ability to compromise. Conservatives' views were a reverse of that: By 60%-34%, they preferred a willingness to stand firm.
The survey of 1,000 people by Zogby International, taken March 24-30, has a margin of error of +/—3.2 percentage points.
FBI Investigates Possible Threats Directed at House Democrats
FOXNews.com
Federal law enforcement officials are looking into at least two possible threats directed at members of Congress and their families that Democrats suggest are related to their vote for health care reform.
More than 10 lawmakers have complained they've received threats since the run-up to Sunday's House vote on a health insurance overhaul, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Wednesday, and law enforcement officials are taking the allegations seriously.
Federal law enforcement officials are investigating at least two possible threats directed at members of Congress and their families that Democrats suggest are related to their vote for health care reform. Plus the office of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who initially opposed the Senate's health bill over concerns about abortion funding but switched to support the plan following assurance from the White House -- has received several threatening messages, recordings of which have been obtained by Fox News.
A prominent Evangelical figure and Republican donor says he will end his contributions to the organized Republican Party in reaction to the leaked fundraising presentation that advised using "fear" to solicit contributions and displayed an image of President Obama as the Joker from Batman.
Mark DeMoss, who heads a major Christian public relations firm in Atlanta and served as a liaison to the Evangelical community for Mitt Romney in 2008, wrote Chairman Michael Steele yesterday that he was "ashamed" of the presentation, calling depictions of Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid "shameful, immature and uncivil, at best."
"I’m afraid the presentation is representative of a culture and mindset within the Republican National Committee," DeMoss, a past member of the RNC's "Eagle" program for top donors who gave the party $15,000 in 2008, wrote in the letter to Steele, which he shared with POLITICO. (DeMoss hasn't given this cycle.) "Consequently, I will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party—but will contribute only to individual candidates I choose to support."
The letter was copied to House and Senate Republican leaders, whose campaign committees DeMoss said he'd also stop supporting.
DeMoss, whose causes include a project devoted to civility and who is the scion of a major Evangelical family, concluded:
"Mr. Chairman, I love giving money to candidates at every level who I believe in and want to see elected. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to consider making a contribution to the Party itself. The sort of behavior displayed in Boca Grande only contributes to the widespread cynicism of politics in general and our Party in particular. It is, in my opinion, indefensible and destructive."
His full letter is after the jump.
March 5, 2010
Chairman Michael Steele
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Like many Republicans today, I am ashamed of the fundraising presentation given by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart at last month’s GOP gathering in Boca Grande, Florida. The depictions of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid were shameful, immature and uncivil, at best. While I realize your office made steps to distance you from this presentation I’m afraid the presentation is representative of a culture and mindset within the Republican National Committee; consequently, I will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party—but will contribute only to individual candidates I choose to support.
I have been a member of the Republican Eagles on a number of occasions in the past, including the 2008 cycle. I have been constantly solicited by the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC, among other GOP organizations and efforts. Recently I was visited in my office by Lynn Westmoreland, who shared with me the redistricting efforts he is leading in the House. He was requesting funds for this initiative (without the sort of nonsense presented recently by your Finance Director) and I was considering contributing to the project. I will not consider doing so now, with apologies to Congressman Westmoreland.
Mr. Chairman, I love giving money to candidates at every level who I believe in and want to see elected. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to consider making a contribution to the Party itself. The sort of behavior displayed in Boca Grande only contributes to the widespread cynicism of politics in general and our Party in particular. It is, in my opinion, indefensible and destructive.
Civility isn't a panacea for our woeful political culture, but at least it could stop the trash talking.
Newsweek Blog
Lisa Miller
On Feb. 3, the day before the National Prayer Breakfast, Christian PR man Mark DeMoss had a 40-minute meeting with Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, and Joshua DuBois, the director of Obama's faith-based office. The subject of the meeting: civility.
DeMoss was an unlikely visitor to the West Wing. The staunchest of conservative Republicans, his most famous client is Franklin Graham, who once quizzed Obama on the nature of his Christian faith. DeMoss worked for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in 2008, endeavoring to build bridges between the Mormon candidate and the conservative evangelicals who have traditionally formed such a powerful part of the Republican base. And it was this PR effort—the pitching of the Mormon politician to Christian voters—that showed him just how uncivil political discourse had become. "A lot of the attitudes and rhetoric aimed at Mormons from fellow evangelicals, and at me for backing a Mormon, were pretty ugly. And while I couldn't be more different politically from Obama, I was bothered by the rhetoric about him from conservatives and evangelicals and people who didn't like him."
So DeMoss got to work on the Civility Project, which he launched last year and is nothing more than a kind of Boy Scout pledge to be respectful in public, even to political opponents. To aid him in the cause, DeMoss enlisted the help of Lanny Davis, a notorious Democratic spinmeister and onetime chief counsel in Bill Clinton's White House. During the 2008 campaign, Davis had been a ubiquitous surrogate for Hillary Clinton, and after she bowed out DeMoss, who had never met Davis, wrote the Democrat a mash note. "I am a conservative evangelical and a Republican, and I suspect that politically you and I have little in common," it said. But "in an increasingly polarized political context and country, you have always been gracious, soft-spoken, thoughtful and respectful of your opponents."
Davis (who concedes that he has not, in fact, always been a graceful opponent but changed his methods a decade or so ago after John McCain shamed him publicly for his personal attacks on Watergate prosecutor Ken Starr) happily joined forces with DeMoss. "We discovered our common humanity and many other things that we had in common, aside from the fact that we disagreed about almost everything in politics."
DeMoss says nothing definitive came out of his White House meeting this month. But given all that's been going on in Washington—the gridlock, the name-calling—Obama clearly has an interest in promoting civility. In his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama made an explicit call for better manners in public. It may seem like "a relic from a bygone era," he said, but "civility requires us to learn to disagree without being disagreeable." He went on to jokingly rap the knuckles of his critics who insist on perpetuating rumors that he is neither American born nor Christian.
In the DeMoss-Davis vision of things, political opponents are able to admit that they like each other. Political arguments, whether on television or on the floor of Congress, are made and won on the merits, without personal attacks. "It's harder and harder," DeMoss says, "to win a debate on the strength of your ideas and words. That's a dumbing-down of America and political discourse. I'm anything but an academic elite, but Obama is not the antichrist, nor is every Republican a saint. Fox News is not infallible, and MSNBC is not all heresy."
It's easy to agree with all this. Being for civility is like being for honesty, or good sportsmanship; it's impossible to make a case against it. The real question, it seems to me, is this: Would a more civil public conversation get us to where we need to go? If a big alien ship descended to earth and removed Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow from the planet, would Congress finally be able to pass health care?
Davis says yes. "If Obama and the Republicans could be Mark DeMoss and me, we could listen to each other. We would mix and match, and find an incremental solution that may be 25 or 50 percent away from where we want to be. Perfect is the enemy of the good." Bipartisanship is—and should be—civility's ultimate goal.
DeMoss won't take it so far. As an evangelical Christian, he says, he has a vested interest in bringing others to his point of view; he believes the best way to do that is with grace, courtesy, and humility. Civility, in other words, enhances one's ability to persuade and convince. Incivility turns people off. In the political sphere, DeMoss doesn't advocate compromise as much as he does winning debates without degrading the conversation. "I'm not promoting unity. I'm promoting civility. That's not the same thing. I'm not on a good manners kick, though that would be nice. Nor am I about getting more bipartisanship." Fierce partisans calling for fair play: it won't break gridlock, but it's a step in the right direction.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Thank you so much. Heads of state, Cabinet members, my outstanding Vice President, members of Congress, religious leaders, distinguished guests, Admiral Mullen -- it's good to see all of you. Let me begin by acknowledging the co-chairs of this breakfast, Senators Isakson and Klobuchar, who embody the sense of fellowship at the heart of this gathering. They're two of my favorite senators. Let me also acknowledge the director of my faith-based office, Joshua DuBois, who is here. Where's Joshua? He's out there somewhere. He's doing great work. (Applause.)
I want to commend Secretary Hillary Clinton on her outstanding remarks, and her outstanding leadership at the State Department. She's doing good every day. (Applause.) I'm especially pleased to see my dear friend, Prime Minister Zapatero, and I want him to relay America's greetings to the people of Spain. And Johnny, you are right, I'm deeply blessed, and I thank God every day for being married to Michelle Obama. (Applause.)
I'm privileged to join you once again, as my predecessors have for over half a century. Like them, I come here to speak about the ways my faith informs who I am -- as a President, and as a person. But I'm also here for the same reason that all of you are, for we all share a recognition -- one as old as time -- that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives.
There is, of course, a need for prayer even in times of joy and peace and prosperity. Perhaps especially in such times prayer is needed -- to guard against pride and to guard against complacency. But rightly or wrongly, most of us are inclined to seek out the divine not in the moment when the Lord makes His face shine upon us, but in moments when God's grace can seem farthest away.
Last month, God's grace, God's mercy, seemed far away from our neighbors in Haiti. And yet I believe that grace was not absent in the midst of tragedy. It was heard in prayers and hymns that broke the silence of an earthquake's wake. It was witnessed among parishioners of churches that stood no more, a roadside congregation, holding bibles in their laps. It was felt in the presence of relief workers and medics; translators; servicemen and women, bringing water and food and aid to the injured.
One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpsman Christian [sic] Brossard. And lying on a gurney aboard the USNS Comfort, a woman asked Christopher: "Where do you come from? What country? After my operation," she said, "I will pray for that country." And in Creole, Corpsman Brossard responded, "Etazini." The United States of America.
God's grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard. It's expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world. It's also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts. By evangelicals at World Relief. By the American Jewish World Service. By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs. By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose.
It's inspiring. This is what we do, as Americans, in times of trouble. We unite, recognizing that such crises call on all of us to act, recognizing that there but for the grace of God go I, recognizing that life's most sacred responsibility -- one affirmed, as Hillary said, by all of the world's great religions -- is to sacrifice something of ourselves for a person in need.
Sadly, though, that spirit is too often absent when tackling the long-term, but no less profound issues facing our country and the world. Too often, that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy, the 9/11 or the Katrina, the earthquake or the tsunami, that can shake us out of complacency. We become numb to the day-to-day crises, the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God's voice.
Now, for those of us here in Washington, let's acknowledge that democracy has always been messy. Let's not be overly nostalgic. (Laughter.) Divisions are hardly new in this country. Arguments about the proper role of government, the relationship between liberty and equality, our obligations to our fellow citizens -- these things have been with us since our founding. And I'm profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy work.
And we've seen actually some improvement in some circumstances. We haven't seen any canings on the floor of the Senate any time recently. (Laughter.) So we shouldn't over-romanticize the past. But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should. At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate. And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion. It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other. It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth. And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care.
Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in an effort to bridge divisions. We see that in many conservative pastors who are helping lead the way to fix our broken immigration system. It's not what would be expected from them, and yet they recognize, in those immigrant families, the face of God. We see that in the evangelical leaders who are rallying their congregations to protect our planet. We see it in the increasing recognition among progressives that government can't solve all of our problems, and that talking about values like responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage are integral to any anti-poverty agenda. Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility.
Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that "civility is not a sign of weakness." Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. (Laughter.) But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship. (Laughter and applause.)
Challenging each other's ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other's motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams -- even when we don't share the same plans on how to fulfill them.
We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth. We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary. But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith, and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm; while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle -- and I assure you I'm praying a lot these days -- (laughter) -- prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a spirit of brotherhood. It can remind us that each of us are children of a awesome and loving God.
Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good. And that's why my Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has been working so hard since I announced it here last year. We've slashed red tape and built effective partnerships on a range of uses, from promoting fatherhood here at home to spearheading interfaith cooperation abroad. And through that office we've turned the faith-based initiative around to find common ground among people of all beliefs, allowing them to make an impact in a way that's civil and respectful of difference and focused on what matters most.
It is this spirit of civility that we are called to take up when we leave here today. That's what I'm praying for. I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility.
But let us remember those who came before; those who believed in the brotherhood of man even when such a faith was tested. Remember Dr. Martin Luther King. Not long after an explosion ripped through his front porch, his wife and infant daughter inside, he rose to that pulpit in Montgomery and said, "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend."
In the eyes of those who denied his humanity, he saw the face of God.
Remember Abraham Lincoln. On the eve of the Civil War, with states seceding and forces gathering, with a nation divided half slave and half free, he rose to deliver his first Inaugural and said, "We are not enemies, but friends... Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."
Even in the eyes of confederate soldiers, he saw the face of God.
Remember William Wilberforce, whose Christian faith led him to seek slavery's abolition in Britain; he was vilified, derided, attacked; but he called for "lessening prejudices [and] conciliating good-will, and thereby making way for the less obstructed progress of truth."
In the eyes of those who sought to silence a nation's conscience, he saw the face of God.
Yes, there are crimes of conscience that call us to action. Yes, there are causes that move our hearts and offenses that stir our souls. But progress doesn't come when we demonize opponents. It's not born in righteous spite. Progress comes when we open our hearts, when we extend our hands, when we recognize our common humanity. Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God. That we might do so -- that we will do so all the time, not just some of the time -- is my fervent prayer for our nation and the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
That was the cry of Rodney King, the African-American man who was mercilessly beaten on March 3, 1991, by members of the Los Angeles police department. It became a rallying cry for the nation in the midst of hostile race wars. And it's applicable today, as we find ourselves in very different--but no less contentious--culture wars.
The simple answer is, we are unique people with conflicting passions. But, shouldn't it be different for followers of Jesus? Shouldn't those of us who claim to follow the Prince of Peace be able to stand firmly upon our convictions without being offensive, cutting or downright mean?
Historically, there have always been pockets of Christians who give God a bad name--the Crusades, slavery, segregated
America. While those are some of the most egregious examples, late-20th century Americans nurtured a new unChristian trend: incivility in public discourse.
Many Christians during this period noticed the widespread so-called "moral decline" in
America and responded with organized political activism. A passion developed among America's faithful, and with it came vicious public debates on hot-button issues like prayer in schools, the public display of the Ten Commandments, abortion and gay rights. As America polarized, public attacks became commonplace--even among Christians.
This struggle for control of our nation's rudder--these "culture wars"--has hurt the public perception of Christianity. As recent Barna research shows, most non-believers feel "Christians are prideful and quick to find faults in others." Today, 70 percent of non-Christians aged 16 to 29 say Christians are "insensitive to others."
Such perceptions have triggered Christian thinkers from the right and left to wonder if this is the best practice for Christ-followers. Public engagement and personal passion over moral issues is laudable, but we should defend our deeply held convictions logically and lovingly instead of emotionally. We should temper our rhetoric with grace, humility and respect. We must learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
"Continuing the present course of the culture wars spells disaster for the United States and a historic failure to seize the moment and demonstrate to the world the significance of the American experiment," writes Os Guinness in The Case for Civility.
On his God's Politics blog, Jim Wallis posted "Rules for Christian Civility," saying we should "not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first ... even if we reach different conclusions." Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan spoke out in her recent book, Patriotic Grace. "What we need most right now, at this moment, is a kind of patriotic grace," she writes. "A grace that takes the long view, apprehends the moment we're in, comes up with ways of dealing with it, and eschews the politically cheap and manipulative."
Political incivility last year prompted
Mark DeMoss to launch The Civility Project. DeMoss is the president of the largest Christian PR firm in America and has represented such conservative icons as Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Charles Colson. "During the 2008 election, I began noticing some of the ugly things being said about people like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, much of it by evangelicals," DeMoss says.
DeMoss' Civility Project asks people to pledge to be civil in public discourse and behavior, respect others whether or not they agree, and stand against incivility. "I think more people than we realize are clamoring for more respectful debate, especially on politics," he says. "People are getting turned off to the entire system, Republicans and Democrats."
DeMoss has joined with Democratic thinker Lanny Davis in this project, and both are careful to point out that civility doesn't mean unity. Americans will never agree on everything. Furthermore, civility doesn't simply mean being nice. "There are pragmatic and practical reasons for civility," he says. "It is virtually impossible to have constructive dialogue or to inform and educate people in an uncivil environment."
