[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2973-S2974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                  THROWING SAND IN SOCIETY'S MACHINERY

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Jim Wright served as Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and, prior to that, majority leader of the 
House.
  I had the privilege of working with him on a number of things and 
found him to be a genuine leader, not just someone who holds the title 
of leader.
  Not long ago, I read a reference about a column that he had done for 
the Fort Worth Star Telegram on the subject of civility.
  I wrote to him and asked for a copy of a column, and it is the kind 
of enlightened common sense that you would expect from Jim Wright.
  The first paragraph of his column sums up our situation beautifully:

       Civility. The word is little used these days, the quality 
     it describes too little practiced. It is a necessary 
     lubricating oil for the machinery of a free society. In its 
     absence, the gears of democracy grind in noisy dissonance to 
     a screeching halt.

  I ask that the entire Jim Wright column be printed in the Record.
  The column follows:
           [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Oct. 23, 1994]

                  Throwing Sand in Society's Machinery

       Civility. The word is little used these days, the quality 
     it describes too little practiced. It is the necessary 
     lubricating oil for the machinery of a free society. In its 
     absence, the gears of democracy grind in noisy dissonance to 
     a screeching halt.
       Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines civility 
     as the state of being civilized. Its marks, the dictionary 
     notes, are politeness, consideration, courtesy. The modern 
     term grew from a Latin word, civilitas. In its original form, 
     it signified ``the art of government.''
       The preservation of liberties--free speech, free press, 
     free religious expression--has always exacted a price. Part 
     of that price is civility, respect for the institutions of 
     our government and fellow citizens with whom we disagree. 
     Deprived of its oxygen, the lungs of a democratic society 
     would ultimately collapse.
       Too much of what passes for debate in this election year, 
     protected by the liberties to which we pay homage, pollutes 
     the public dialogue as noxiously as carbon monoxide 
     contaminates a living environment.
       The hallmark of a civilized human order is the ability to 
     disagree without being disagreeable. We seem to be losing 
     this. Instead of reasoned disputation, we hear increasingly 
     hateful and unreasoning allegations brandished like weapons 
     designed to inflict injury and mortal hurt.
       The mail last week brought astonished recipients a fund-
     raising appeal so rotten and rancid with hate as to offend 
     the very garbage cans into which it should be forthrightly 
     consigned.
       On an official-looking letterhead with a Washington 
     address, the plea for contributions begins with the following 
     outrageous claim: ``I have in my possession compelling 
     evidence that proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that White 
     House aid [sic] Vincent Foster was murdered * * * vital clues 
     that lead right to the Oval Office.''
       Begging for money to spew out more such bile, the writer 
     promises to prosecute a case of impeachment against President 
     Clinton, presumably for the murder of his lifelong friend.
       Really, this is beyond the pale. No president of the United 
     States should have to contend with such inflammatory and 
     unfounded libel. It is not enough that special counsel Robert 
     B. Fiske, a Republican and no friend of Clinton's looked 
     carefully into this bizarre allegation concerning poor 
     Foster's suicide and reported it to be just that.
       Tasting blood and heedless of the proven emptiness of their 
     brazen claim or the hurt it inflicts upon loved ones and 
     friends of the late presidential aide, professional purveyors 
     of venom continue their calculated campaign of calumny 
     against the president.
       Hate-Clinton solicitation letters have become a cottage 
     industry. For some the good is political power. For others 
     it's just a way to fill greedy coffers with contributions 
     bilked from innocent, well-meaning Americans gullibly alarmed 
     by the strident claims of right-wing media personalities such 
     as Rush Limbaugh and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
       Preachments of hate, prejudgments of guilt and eagerness to 
     repeat the vilest slanders are not new to American society. 
     But they do seem to have reached preposterous proportions in 
     this election year.
       Twenty-six years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson deplored the 
     incivility of some anti-war demonstrators who shouted slogans 
     to drown out opposition. ``They are chiefly united in the 
     certainty with which they advance their views,'' he said, 
     ``and in the vehemence with which they mock the views of 
     others.''
       Thomas Jefferson 160 years earlier compared political 
     extremists to ``patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than 
     moral counsel.'' He despaired of ``any attempt to set one of 
     these zealots to right, either in fact or principle.''
       Presently, things are going better. American policy is 
     working. In Haiti and Iraq our will prevails without war. 
     North Korea, after 40 years of implacable hostility, agrees 
     to remove its nuclear threat.
      World tensions abate. Israel and Jordan proclaim a historic 
     peace. At home the economy grows, unemployment falls, 
     prices are stable. We should rejoice, but we don't.
       Pollsters report a sour mood, agitated to anger by apostles 
     of discontent. Seldom have political partisans so boldly 
     boasted of obstruction, so viciously attacked colleagues and 
     their own institutions. What's missing is civility.
       [[Page S2974]] The assault on mutual respect has pervaded 
     Congress. Republicans, desperate after 40 years in the 
     minority, are turning ever more negative. Some nervous 
     Democrats follow suit. Not only do dissident members attack 
     the personal integrity of our president, but they seem out to 
     weaken and destroy Congress itself. Absurdly, they think this 
     is what the public wants.
       Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole and House Whip Newt 
     Gingrich recently pledged support on the Capitol steps for a 
     constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. House 
     members should not be trusted, the argument goes, to serve 
     faithfully for more than six years, nor senators for more 
     than 12.
       But at the heart of this gimmicky assault on the 
     Constitution lies an unspoken assumption that the public 
     cannot be trusted to choose wisely. The hypocrisy of the 
     position that these two publicly profess is transparent in 
     the fact that Dole has been in Congress continuously since 
     1960, and Gingrich, who would limit future colleagues to no 
     more than three terms, is seeking his ninth.
       If their logic should ever prevail, the legislative branch 
     will be vastly weakened, bereft of strong and experienced 
     leaders, much more at the mercy of an authoritative executive 
     branch. There will be no Sam Rayburns, no Robert A. Tafts, no 
     Arthur Vandenbergs or Barry Goldwaters to curb the 
     presidential appetite for power or to soften its occasional 
     rashness with their wisdom. And civility.
     

                          ____________________