[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 169 (Friday, December 30, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2653-E2654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NEED FOR GREATER CONGRESSIONAL CIVILITY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 29, 2005

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the House 
Center Aisle Caucus, which seeks to bring greater civility and 
moderation to the actions of the United States House of Representatives 
and to the interactions between its Members, I commend to all of my 
colleagues the recent Providence Journal column authored by Eugene G. 
Bernardo, II, which I have included in today's Congressional Record. 
Mr. Bernardo's commentary regarding the increasing breakdown of 
civility in political campaigns is equally applicable to the 
legislative process at the federal level. As he concludes: ``By 
encouraging us to see as equals even those with whom we disagree 
vehemently, civility lets us hold the respectful dialogues without 
which democratic decision-making is impossible.''
  Mr. Speaker, truer words have never been written. I hope that our 
colleagues will take them to heart as we face the legislative 
challenges of the weeks and months to come.

              [From the Providence Journal, Nov. 11, 2005]

                 Incivility breeds threats to democracy

                       (By Eugene G. Bernardo II)

       In 1982, noted criminologists James Q. Wilson and George 
     Kelling developed the ``broken windows'' theory of crime. The 
     premise was that when a broken window in a building is left 
     unrepaired, the rest of the windows are soon broken by 
     vandals.
       According to Wilson and Kelling, the broken window invites 
     further vandalism by sending a signal that no one is in 
     charge, and that breaking more windows has no undesirable 
     consequences.
       The broken window is their metaphor for numerous ways in 
     which behavioral norms can break down in a community. If one 
     person scrawls graffiti on a wall, others will soon be using 
     their spray paint. If one person begins dumping garbage in a 
     vacant lot, other dumpers will follow.
       In short, once people begin disregarding the norms that 
     maintain community order, both community and order unravel--
     sometimes with alarming alacrity.
       The broken-windows theory is applicable to the modern-day 
     political campaign.
       The campaign for public office should be waged within the 
     marketplace of ideas.
       It should entail a wide range of debates about public 
     policy, with the candidates each aiming to persuade the 
     citizenry to accept their viewpoints.
       However, what we are seeing within the marketplace of ideas 
     today is a disturbing

[[Page E2654]]

     growth of incivility that confirms the broken-windows theory. 
     This breakdown of civil norms is not the exclusive failing of 
     either the political left or the right. It spreads across the 
     political spectrum. It is typically carried out, not by the 
     candidates, but by auxiliary groups and other campaigners, 
     who attempt to help their cause by demonizing their 
     opponents.
       For example, New Jersey's just-completed race for governor 
     was marred by cross allegations of marital infidelity.
       Such examples--unfortunately, there are many more--come 
     from so-called leaders in the marketplace of ideas, all of 
     whom are highly educated and must stand behind their public 
     statements. The Internet, with its easy access and worldwide 
     reach, is a breeding ground for even more degrading 
     incivilities.
       This illustrates the first aspect of the broken-windows 
     theory: Once the incivility starts, people will take it as an 
     invitation to join in, and pretty soon there's little limit 
     to the incivility.
       A second aspect of the broken-windows theory, however, is 
     also happening.
       Wilson and Kelling describe this response when the visible 
     signs of order deteriorate in a neighborhood: ``Many 
     residents will think that crime, especially violent crime, is 
     on the rise, and they will modify their behavior accordingly. 
     They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets 
     will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, 
     silent lips, and hurried steps. Don't get involved.''
       We see this in the political arena. Many are opting out as 
     civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas. In the last 
     two presidential elections, fewer than half of eligible 
     voters even bothered to vote; voter participation in national 
     elections is on a 40-year decline. As the atmosphere turns 
     hostile to anything approaching a civil exchange or a real 
     dialogue, citizens depart from the political process and shun 
     their civic responsibility.
       This is the real danger of incivility. Our free-breathing, 
     self-governing society requires the oxygen of an open 
     exchange of ideas. It requires a certain level of civility 
     rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions. However, 
     what we see today is an accelerating competition between the 
     left and the right to see which side can inflict more damage 
     to the other. Increasingly, participants in public debates 
     appear to be exchanging ideas when in fact they are spewing 
     invective.
       When behavioral norms break down in a community, the police 
     can restore order.
       But when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas, 
     the law is generally powerless. Our right to speak freely--
     indeed, to speak with incivility--is guaranteed by the First 
     Amendment.
       If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we 
     must restore civility to public discourse. We have to be 
     responsible. We must govern our tongues and our pens. Whether 
     the incivility occurs on a talk show, in a newspaper column, 
     in political campaign ads, at the office water cooler, or in 
     an Internet chat room, it must be met with active 
     disapproval.
       This is not to say that democracy requires consensus; it 
     requires debate, which . presupposes that we have 
     disagreements. But civility demands of us that we not let 
     those disagreements--even during these times of great 
     division between the left and the right--push us into words 
     or acts of sharp offense or violence.
       By encouraging us to see as equals even those with whom we 
     disagree vehemently, civility lets us hold the respectful 
     dialogues without which democratic decision-making is 
     impossible.

                          ____________________