[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 172 (Thursday, November 19, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2814-E2815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AMB. LYNDON OLSON SPEECH--IMPORTANCE OF CIVILITY IN AMERICAN LIFE AND 
                                POLITICS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 19, 2009

  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the 
Congressional Record wise words from Ambassador Lyndon Olson that we 
would all do well to follow.
  In a time of such little civility in our public discourse, Ambassador 
Lyndon Olson reminds us what is best about America. It is the strength 
of our values, our character, and common respect for our fellow man and 
woman that make our nation great.
  We must strive to protect and nurture those values of common respect 
for one another if we are to grow as a nation.

  Remarks of Ambassador Lyndon Olson Upon Accepting the Texas Legacy 
Award From the Center for Public Policy Priorities At the Eighth Annual 
         Texas Legacy Luncheon November 12, 2009, Austin, Texas

       Thank you very much for this honor. I appreciate the kind 
     remarks of my friend Congressman Edwards. I also appreciate 
     the opportunity today to talk to this distinguished group 
     about a concern of mine.
       I want to talk with you about civility, both in society in 
     general and in our politics in particular.
       I encourage you to think back . . . for some of us way back 
     . . . to those report cards we got in first grade. Most 
     everyone had different type cards and categories, but they 
     were pretty much variations on the same basic theme. I'm not 
     talking about your arithmetic or reading or penmanship 
     grades. I'm talking about the comportment column, with things 
     such as Exercises self-control . . . respects the rights of 
     others . . . shows kindness and consideration for others . . 
     . indicates willingness to cooperate . . . uses handkerchief 
     (important even before the H1N1 virus) . . . and, my favorite 
     was usually right up at the top of that 6-week report card 
     and it's of particular significance to our discussion . . . 
     ``Plays well with others.''
       We were being taught about and graded on one of the most 
     fundamental skills of our civilization: how to get along with 
     others. There is a reason that plays well with others was one 
     of the first things we were taught and evaluated on. And 
     folks, I don't think we're getting a very good grade on plays 
     well with others these days. Many of us don't even want to 
     play with someone we don't like or agree with.
       Where did all of this come from? In the majority of my life 
     this hasn't been the case. Those of us in this room over 40 
     or 50 didn't grow up in anything like this environment. We 
     didn't live like this. Not in our communities . . . not in 
     our politics. We lived in a political world with strong 
     feelings and positions, yes. And we took swings at each other 
     politically. But it didn't come down, to the moral equivalent 
     of street brawls and knife fights. Politics has always been a 
     contact sport, but the conflict didn't permeate every aspect 
     of our society and rise to today's level of social and verbal 
     hostility. It is very unhealthy. And I'm not sure what to do 
     about it. But I know it when I see it and hear it. And I know 
     it is time we focus as much attention on our civil behavior 
     as we do on achieving our personal and partisan agendas. How 
     we do that, I don't know. But I want to raise the issue, ask 
     the questions, and encourage you all to give it your 
     consideration as well.
       We live in an era of rudeness, in society in general, in 
     the popular culture, and in our political life. Our culture 
     today, in fact, rewards incivility, crudeness, and cynicism. 
     You can get on TV, get your own talk show or reality series 
     if you out-shout and offend the other guy. Everyone screams, 
     no one listens. We produce a lot of heat but little light. 
     The proclivity is to demonize our opponent. People don't just 
     disagree . . . the challenge to the other is a battle to 
     the death. Character assassination, verbal abuse, 
     obnoxious behavior, and an overbearing attention on 
     scandal and titillation--all that isn't just reserved to 
     day-time TV anymore--it's the currency of prime-time, of 
     late night, of cable news, of the Internet, and of society 
     in general.
       What happened to us? Should this be a sign of alarm? Is the 
     problem selfishness--we won't be denied, we must be 
     immediately gratified? We want everything we've ever seen in 
     the movies? How do we live and get along like our parents and 
     their generation? They had to sacrifice. They didn't get what 
     they wanted when they wanted it. Is today's need for instant 
     gratification a problem?
       We are more inclusive today . . . and that is a good 
     thing--but has that good made for increased tensions?
        Is it the 24-hour news cycle? The 24-hour news cycle 
     demands instantaneous news, which feeds off of controversy, 
     scandal, and easy answers to difficult questions. There is

[[Page E2815]]

     scant time for reflection or reasoned analysis. Market forces 
     demand instantaneous information and jarring entertainment 
     values, not sober analysis or wisdom. The news media are more 
     prone to focus on the loudest, the most outrageous, and the 
     most partisan actors. And given the rise of the political 
     consultant class, candidates and campaigns are louder, more 
     outrageous, and meta-partisan. Political consultants have 
     helped create a permanent campaign where politics takes 
     precedence over governance. The political consultants egg on 
     all this for profit, creating controversy where little or 
     none exists so the message, the theme of the day, is played 
     out on TV and the media. They're paid handsomely to cause 
     strife and create conflict in order to raise hackles, money, 
     and attention . . . fomenting issues to suit their agenda. 
     It's all about the message, not the solution, not the 
     negotiation, the debate, the compromise to move forward. It's 
     about who is controlling the message, who is defining the 
     message, who is creating the message, who is keeping the 
     conflict alive often where none existed before the consultant 
     decided one was needed. Is this what keeps us at each other's 
     throats?
       Is it talk radio, attack TV? Is it the talk shows, the 
     shout festivals where absolute hyperbole is the only 
     currency? Mean-spirited hyperbole and hyper-partisanship 
     breeds cynicism. Citizens are increasingly cynical about 
     politics and about their government's ability to work. The 
     damage to the ship of state, to the fabric of the nation begs 
     repair. Whose job is it to change course and effect the 
     necessary repairs? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, 
     but I propose that in a room full of policy makers and 
     politicians, men and women who talk to the media, who work in 
     the public arena, who hire consultants, who set agendas, 
     maybe we have a role to play in making things better.
       You know, I can say that there are some people in this 
     room, people I consider dear friends, who understand this 
     problem and I believe share my concern. To those friends I 
     say, you and I both know that we disagree very fundamentally 
     on some very big issues but the truth is that we could care 
     less about our disagreements and are more concerned about 
     where we can find consensus and reasons to work and live 
     together to construct a better future. I consider this kind 
     of commitment to trust and open dialogue crucial to 
     maintaining a sustainable society.
       And indeed, isn't it about building a better future for our 
     community, for our country, for our children? I say that even 
     on the most intractable of issues, there is room for 
     constructive debate, for consensus building, for the search 
     for some common ground.
       President Johnson once said to his Democratic colleague, 
     Gov. George Wallace of Alabama, during the crisis of civil 
     rights in the South: ``What do you want left behind? You want 
     a great, big marble monument that says, `George Wallace: He 
     built.' Or do you want a little piece of scrawny pine lying 
     there that says, `George Wallace: He hated' ''?
       The people I know in this room are builders. But we are 
     confronting a world today where hate seems to be a 
     predominant factor in the crisis of incivility confronting 
     our politics.
       Where are the rules that govern conduct? What happens 
     eventually after this continuous rancor tears the fabric of 
     our society completely asunder? Can we survive with this 
     tenor . . . taking no prisoners, giving no quarter?
        I'm asking these questions because you folks here are 
     blessed with skills, talent, experience and a commitment to a 
     positive public policy. You understand the importance of 
     maintaining and protecting our commonweal where we strive to 
     serve our clients, our community, our country, and our state. 
     If civil discourse self-destructs, we cannot move on the 
     issues that matter. Think of this as an environmental crisis 
     . . . the environment being our civil society and our very 
     ability to live and work and prosper together.
       I don't want to sound pious or preachy here, but if we are 
     to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must work 
     together. We shouldn't try to destroy our opponents just 
     because we disagree. We have to govern our tongues. The 
     Proverbs tells us, chapter 18, verse 12, ``Death and life are 
     in the power of the tongue.'' How we choose to use words--for 
     good or for wrong--is clearly our choice. The health of our 
     democracy depends upon a robust public discourse.
       Recognize that I am not saying that conflict in our 
     political life is to be avoided. Hardly so. It is not only 
     proper but necessary for candidates to vigorously debate the 
     issues of our day and examine their opponents' records. Don't 
     let people confuse civility with goody two-shoes niceness and 
     mere etiquette. Civility is a robust, tough, substantive 
     civic virtue, critical to both civil society and the future 
     of our republic. Civility entails speaking directly, 
     passionately, and responsibly about who we are and what we 
     believe. Divisions based on principles are healthy for the 
     nation. Vigorous and passionate debate helps us to define 
     issues and to sharpen positions.
       Conflict cannot, should not be avoided in our public lives 
     any more than we can avoid conflict with the people we love. 
     But just as member of a household, as a family learn ways of 
     settling their differences without inflicting real damage on 
     each other, so we, in our politics, must find constructive 
     ways of resolving disputes and differences.
       Our work is here. We build from the base. We will foster 
     change first by our example . . . by working together, 
     respecting one another, and negotiating our differences in 
     good faith and with mutual respect. Civility is neither a 
     small nor inconsequential issue. The word comes from the 
     French civilite which is often translated as ``politeness.'' 
     But it means much more. It suggests an approach to life . . . 
     living in a way that is civilized. The words ``civilized,'' 
     ``civilite,'' and ``city'' share a common etymology with a 
     word meaning ``member of the household.'' To be civilized is 
     to understand that we live in a society as in a household. 
     There are certain rules that allow family members to live 
     peacefully within a household. So, too, are there rules of 
     civility that allow us to live peacefully within a society. 
     As we all learned in 1st grade a long time ago, we owe 
     certain responsibilities to one another. Perhaps we spend a 
     lifetime learning how to play well with others. So be it. It 
     is a crucial goal for a civil society. Thank you.

                          ____________________