PUTNEY — As the legislation that restricts firearms possession for violent felons and mentally-ill individuals adjudicated as a threat, was on its way to passage, and I was on my way to join a small group of state legislators from across the country to look at ways to promote more civil discourse.
Right after the deciding vote in the Vermont House on the public safety bill, I found myself on a jet for a weekend training in Tucson, Ariz. at the National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD). Housed at Arizona State University, the NICD had already begun to look at how to bring more civility to public discourse before the shooting of Rep. Gifford, and that tragedy galvanized those efforts.
Tragic shootings like that one, or the one in Newtown, Conn., are not entirely why I voted for S.141 - “An Act Pertaining to the Possession of Firearms” - but it was part of my reasoning.
I agree with the many who felt we couldn't wait to address a changing national and state landscape - one where Elie Wiesel's quote “When language fails, violence becomes a language” was becoming all-too-accurately prophetic. It was time to take a stand and do something.
It's also time nationally to take a stand and act on the belief that civil discourse is becoming less and less prevalent. This decline threatens the heart of our democracy (or our republic version) at a time when our democracy would do well to take an evolutionary step forward.
Civil processes to address conflict - even acutely sharp conflict - are a prime function of government and our justice system. Yet, from sitting members of Congress calling our president a liar during his State of the Union address to online bullying substituting for civil debate in matters of public policy, heightened rhetoric has shaken our sense that conflict can still be addressed in productive ways.
The group that gathered in Tucson was selected to be geographically and politically diverse. The East, West, North, and South were represented, as were the two major national parties and the left, right, and center of each.
What we had in common: the shared belief that the status quo needed improvement.
* * *
As we got to know and share with one another, it was fascinating to hear what was going on around the country.
In much of the West and Southwest, drought and water shortages are growing more acute. Water in Colorado feeds several of the states in that area and, until this year, interstate water agreements precluded residents of that state from collecting the rain water falling from their own roofs. A bill passed this year now allows that, but politicians from that region are concerned that other states will challenge this new law in the courts.
Minnesotans are challenged as equally as we are in Vermont to extend their telecom/broadband infrastructure out into rural areas. And in West Virginia, a legislator shared the story of how a law emerged from a bill to provide schoolchildren with three meals a day to address childhood hunger.
* * *
From Vermont, I shared stories of civil debates on budgets at Town Meeting or discussions about whether to buy a new fire truck. However, on issues like civil unions/marriage equality, and this latest journey in updating public-safety laws around guns, the rhetoric can sometimes turn ugly.
In most instances, we practice using our voices and our ears as well as our hearts and minds. In those other instances, though, sometimes the rhetoric can get away from us.
We also shared the sense that we are acting as a counterculture response to the status quo - a status quo that, we also agreed, was fostered significantly by a media that is hungry for sensation, as well as party affiliation that can get stuck deeply.
While many decry the negativity in our social and political discourse, the fact is: it can work.
And, as any traveling salesman will tell you, as long as folks are buying, they'll keep selling.
Challenging the political status quo and the media are daunting tasks, but we are convinced that if the escalation of rhetoric continues, our political system will become increasingly unsustainable. (An example of media skewing a story is how the local Tucson television station featured our workshop: with the caption “Political Dysfunction!”)
The bottom line from this experience: We feel we can do better while we get our work done for the American people without getting stuck on personalities, polemics, and sensationalism.
* * *
So what does more civil discourse look like?
Here in Vermont, I remember stories of our own Republican Senator, the late George Aiken, and his daily breakfasts with Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana. That simple act of breaking bread can go far in bridging political divides.
Just as important, though, are opportunities to share our personal stories - the quickest way to build a bridge, as the old adage goes. And, indeed, it works.
Our stories of struggle and triumph reveal our common humanity and can stop the demonizing of the “unknown other.” Whether it's a difference because of race, color, creed, or political persuasion, we are the same species, and our survival depends on getting along better than we have.
Civil discourse doesn't mean we agree on everything but that if we disagree, it isn't taken as a threat to our very being. It's also having people on both sides of an issue accept that disagreement doesn't mean the other side isn't listening - they just don't agree.
Whether we think taxes should be raised or cut, we would do well to accept that both perspectives rise up from a place of belief of what's best for the state or nation.
We're losing that sense. Left or right, conservative or liberal, our fears and labels are getting us stuck in place and are limiting our vision of helping our nation continue to evolve, of being able to see beyond our own backyard.
We don't have to let go of our core values or beliefs to accept another way of thinking. In the political arena, if compromise is needed to advance an idea or even part of one, it can be worth it. From my perspective, the key is helping things move forward and not staying stuck.
* * *
Now, those efforts to nurture the foundation of our nation and return civil discourse in the public arena are being organized by Tucson's NICD (along with other groups in the U.S. such as No Label).
I'm now among the 26 state legislators from around the country who have been trained to offer workshops on keeping it civil. At our state legislatures, we will meet with seemingly disparate groups to sit, talk, break bread, and share our stories about our common humanity.
Finding common ground and appealing to “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln said, we will also remember our common love for democracy and this great experiment in democratic principles.
We can also put into practice the lesson I learned from the kindergartner I spoke with at a recent school visit. He shared that a practical lesson for the day he learned was, “Use your words, not your teeth.”
A good lesson for all of us, especially in the political arena.
The NICD is laying out the intention and practice for how we can do better in public discourse at the state-legislature level - and, hopefully, feed those concepts upward to the United States Capitol.
Warts and all, I believe these United States still hold the greatest hope for how to move forward, in a civilized manner, into the 21st century. Civil discourse is at the heart of that path forward.