[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 768-769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SENATE DEBATE

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, one of the fundamental purposes of this 
body is to debate some of the biggest issues facing this Nation and to 
do so in an honorable way. The Senate is for debate but not as an 
abstraction. It is to be addressing and ultimately solving the meatiest 
challenges the Constitution demands that we tackle. Unfortunately, a 
great deal of our debate is weak and embarrassing. Much of it falls off 
the trivial side of the cliff or the shrill side of the cliff.
  During my time serving Nebraskans in this place, I hope to be aligned 
with those who want fighting and debating in this place, but it needs 
to be meaningful fighting. It needs to be honorable, honest debating.
  To that end, there is a terrific column this week by Pete Wehner in 
Commentary magazine. Partly because the column is about Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, at whose desk I intentionally sit, partly because it is about 
C.S. Lewis, a man whose writings have changed my life, and partly 
because it is just darn good exhortation to us, I would like to read a 
portion of this column into the Senate Record today.
  Wehner begins:

       While reading Gregory Weiner's fascinating book ``American 
     Burke,'' I came across this comment: ``(Daniel Patrick) 
     Moynihan's intellectual curiosity was such that he gravitated 
     toward thinkers with whom he disagreed precisely because he 
     disagreed with them and could consequently learn from them.
       This observation reminded me of an incident in 1948 
     involving C.S. Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe, a Catholic 
     convert who was considered one of the most brilliant moral 
     philosophers of her generation.
       Lewis was president of the Oxford Socratic Club, an open 
     forum that met every Monday evening and whose purpose was to 
     discuss the intellectual difficulties connected with 
     religion, and with Christianity in particular.
       ``In any fairly large and talkative community such as a 
     university--

  And, I would add, such as a Senate--

     there is always the danger that those who think alike should 
     gather together into `coteries' where they will henceforth 
     encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumor 
     that the outsiders say thus and thus,''. . . .
       The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism 
     thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group 
     hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that 
     the other groups can say. . . .
       On February 2, 1948, Anscombe and Lewis debated a portion 
     of Lewis's book ``Miracles,'' with Anscombe reading a paper 
     pointing out ``a fatal flaw in Lewis's argument,''. . . (It 
     was a complicated critique having to do with the conflation 
     of irrational and nonrational factors in belief-formation.) 
     The result of the debate, which Lewis himself felt he lost, 
     was revisions to his book. Anscombe, while not convinced by 
     the changes made by Lewis, did say ``the fact that Lewis 
     rewrote that chapter, and rewrote it so that it now has these 
     qualities, shows his honesty and seriousness.''
       That's not all. When Lewis was asked to nominate speakers 
     for the 1951 Socratic Club season, Anscombe was his first 
     choice. ``That lady is quite right to refute what she thinks 
     bad theistic arguments, but does this not almost oblige her 
     as a Christian to find good

[[Page 769]]

     ones in their place: having obliterated me as an Apologist 
     ought she not to succeed me?''
       There is something impressive in the qualities demonstrated 
     by Moynihan and Lewis: a willingness to learn from others, 
     including those with whom we disagree. There is in this an 
     admirable blend of intellectual humility and self-
     confidence--the humility to know that at best we possess only 
     a partial understanding of the truth, which can always be 
     enlarged; and the self-confidence that allows for refinement 
     and amendment of our views in light of new arguments, new 
     circumstances, new insights.
       Beyond that, it's a useful reminder that the quality we 
     ought to strive for isn't certitude but to be a seeker of 
     truth. That is, I think, what separates ideologues from true 
     intellectuals. The former is determined to defend a pre-
     existing position come what may, interpreting facts to fit a 
     worldview that is already well beyond challenge. The latter 
     seeks genuine enlightenment and is eager to discard false 
     notions they may hold--and values rather than resents those 
     who help them on that journey.
       The purpose of debating, then, isn't so much just to win an 
     argument as it is to deepen our understanding of how things 
     really and truly are. It isn't to out-shout an opponent but, 
     at least now and then, to listen to them, to weigh their 
     arguments with care, and even to learn from them. It's worth 
     noting that Lewis warned about simply surrounding ourselves 
     with like-minded people who reinforce our own biases and how 
     debates conducted properly ``helped to civilize one 
     another.''
       What a quaint notion.
       In saying all this, I'm not insisting that everyone you 
     disagree with is someone you can learn from, nor that 
     everyone's views contain an equal measure of wisdom. Some 
     people really don't know what they're talking about, some 
     people really do hold pernicious and false views, and some 
     people really do deserve harsh criticism.
       My point is simply that because the pull is so strong the 
     other way--most of us use debates as a way to amplify pre-
     existing views rather than refine them; try to crush 
     opponents rather than engage and understand them; and focus 
     on the weakest rather than the strongest arguments found in 
     opposing views--the Moynihan-Lewis model is a good one to 
     strive for.

  Wehner continues:

       I understand that talking about such things can sound 
     hopelessly high-minded and, for some, signal a mushy lack of 
     conviction. When you're in a political death match with the 
     other side, after all, the idea of learning from it seems 
     either ridiculously naive or slightly treasonous. But of 
     course, this reaction highlights just how much things have 
     gone off track.
       To be sure, American politics has always been a raucous 
     affair. As Madison put it in Federalist #55, ``Had every 
     Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly 
     would still have been a mob.'' The question is whether one 
     stokes the passions of the mob or appeals to reason.
       As someone who doesn't do nearly well enough in this 
     regard, I rather admire the Lewis model. He was a better man, 
     and Miracles was a better book, for having recognized he lost 
     his debate with Ms. Anscombe. For Lewis to then promote her 
     despite having been bested by her was doubly impressive, yet 
     in some respects not surprising. After all, Lewis was a man 
     who cared more about striving after truth than in attending 
     to his pride. He cared more about learning from arguments 
     than winning them.
       So should we.

  Again, this was Pete Wehner, Commentary Magazine, with some 
instructive words for all of us laboring here in this body.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________