It is a great honor to participate in this evening's forum. Aware of the Ignatius family's many contributions to seeking new approaches to conundrums in the fields of politics, religion, and society, I went on-line, typing in the name "Ignatius," to see what I might find.
The first reference was not to this fine family or even to the founder of the Jesuits but rather to the third Christian bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch. I read that he was "unremitting in his vigilance and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope" and that "the restoration of peace, though it was short-lived, greatly comforted him." Thinking that perhaps his writing could provide guidance for my remarks, I read on, only to learn that his reward for preaching peace was to be torn apart by lions in the Roman Colosseum.
While I would not begin to compare life as a compromise-seeking centrist in the Senate to being torn limb from limb by lions, it is nevertheless true that being a moderate in the Senate is a difficult place to be at this time in our history.
I am uncertain who first described politics as the "art of compromise," but that maxim, to which I have always subscribed, seems woefully out of fashion today. Sitting down with those on the opposite side of an issue, figuring out which issues matter the most to each side, negotiating in good faith, and attempting to reach a solution are actions often vilified by the hard-liners on both sides of the aisle. Achieving solutions is not the goal for many today; rather, it is to draw sharp distinctions and score political points, even if that means that the problems confronting our country go unresolved. Perhaps that is one reason the American people are so angry with incumbents of all political persuasions, but particularly those who are in charge.
There have been times when those of us who worked to avert the implosion of the legislative process were more welcome. A well-known example was when 14 Senators, who quickly became known as the "Gang of 14," came together in 2005 to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees to avoid what was colorfully known as the "nuclear option," a change in the Senate rules which would have brought about a meltdown of the Senate.
As you may recall, Democrats had used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of some of President George W. Bush's appellate court nominees. With the rallying cry that nominees deserved an "up or down vote," Republican Senate leaders threatened to change the Senate's rules in a way that would prevent filibusters from being used to block judicial confirmations. The Democrats countered that the rights of the minority had always been protected in the Senate and warned that if the rules were changed, the Democrats would block action on everything.
While the leaders on both sides hardened their positions and heightened their rhetoric, 14 of us, seven from each party, came together to discuss the issue rationally and to forge a solution. We established a new standard for filibustering judicial nominees, stating that we would only support filibusters in "extraordinary circumstances."
Applying that standard, our solution resulted in the Democratic Senators in our Gang supporting cloture for five of the seven filibustered nominees, resulting in their confirmation. In turn, we seven Republicans agreed to oppose the change in the Senate rules to prohibit judicial filibusters, the so-called "nuclear option," thus thwarting the plans of the Republican leaders.
At a deeper level, our agreement restored trust and helped preserve the unique culture of the Senate. It showed that the two parties could come together, negotiate, and reach an agreement in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good faith.
But oh, how times have changed. When I led the effort in 2009 to try to forge a more fiscally responsible stimulus bill, I was roundly vilified by partisans on both sides. On the left, I was attacked by columnists for cutting $100 billion from the bill and mocked as "Swine Flu Sue" by bloggers for my contention that spending for a pandemic flu did not belong in the stimulus bill but should be handled in the regular appropriations process. That the funding was approved precisely that way the very next month seemed not to matter.
On the right, I was denounced as a traitor and as a RINO, the derisive term supposedly denoting a "Republican In Name Only." One of my own Republican colleagues targeted me for a campaign that generated tens of thousands of out-of-state emails that denounced me in no uncertain terms.
My point is not whether my judgment was right in trying to fashion a more targeted and less expensive stimulus bill to deal with the most serious economic crisis facing our country since the Great Depression. My point is that the debate was not civil in the least and quickly became extremely personal and painfully nasty.
What changed? Now I am sure that historian Michael Beschloss, who is speaking later tonight, would tell you that the degree of civility in Congress has ebbed and flowed over the years and would point out that at least we don't have one member caning another into unconsciousness as happened in 1856 when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina flogged Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor. But in modern times, I have not seen the degree of bitter divisiveness and excessive partisanship now found in the Senate. The weapon of choice today is not a metal-topped cane, but poisonous words.
I would suggest that divided government and a more evenly split Senate is more conducive to bipartisanship than are the super-majorities and one-party control of both the executive and the legislature that are part of our current political landscape. When one party has all the power, the temptation is to roll over the minority, which in turns leads to resentment and resistance because the minority has so few options.
During the past two years, the minority party has been increasingly shut out of the discussion. Even in the Senate, which used to pride itself on being the bastion of free and open debate, procedural tactics are routinely used to prevent Republican amendments. That in turn causes Republicans to overuse the filibuster because our only option is to stop a bill to which we cannot offer amendments.
We saw this unfortunate phenomenon in the recent consideration of the Defense Authorization Bill. I have supported ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and was the sole Republican on the Armed Services Committee who voted for repeal. My view is this: if individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, to be deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow citizens, then we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military.
But I recognized that many of my colleagues disagreed with me. And they should have the right to express their views and offer their amendments on this controversial issue - as well as on many others in the bill. Thus, I found myself in the awkward position of voting against proceeding to legislation that I supported and that contained a change in policy that I had advocated.
This was the 116th time in this Congress that the Majority Leader or another member of the majority filed cloture rather than proceeding to the bill under an agreement allowing amendments to be debated. What concerns me even more is the practice of filling up the amendment tree to prevent Republican amendments - this was the 40th time that was done.
By contrast, when the executive is controlled by one party and at least one chamber is in the hands of the other, the President has no choice but to reach out and negotiate. It would be a lot easier for President Obama to resist the hard left of his party if he could say that he has to pursue legislation acceptable to a Republican House or Senate. Or better yet, from my perspective -- both!
The emergence of a 24/7 news cycle and of cable networks that cater to individuals who are on one side of the political spectrum or the other also hardens the political lines and makes compromise much more difficult. Members of Congress with more extreme political views now have an outlet for their rants and arguably make for more interesting interviews that those of us in the colorless center.
There is another negative development that has contributed to the decline in civility. When I was a freshman Senator in 1997, Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island, as fine a gentleman as has ever graced the Senate chamber, advised me never to campaign against those with whom I served. The Senate is too small a place to campaign against your colleagues, he counseled. Campaign for your Republican colleagues and go into states with open seats, but do not campaign against your Democratic colleagues. It will poison your relationship with them.
Back then, most Senators followed the "Chafee Rule," but that soon changed. Now many Senators enthusiastically campaign against their colleagues across the aisle. I was shocked when in 2008 two of my Democratic colleagues came into Maine and unfairly criticized my work during my highly competitive race that year. My dismay was heightened by the fact that there was no one running that year with more bipartisan legislative initiatives - and accomplishments - than I had. My willingness to cross the aisle to work on problems had been well established over the past decade. In fact, the primary theme of my campaign was my ability to work across party lines to get things done.
This year's elections have shown just how far the destruction of collegiality has progressed, with some members campaigning against incumbent Senators in their own caucus by endorsing their primary opponents.
The personal attacks in campaigns have detrimental effects that last long after Election Day. It is difficult to consider someone a colleague and a potential legislative partner who has travelled to one's home state to criticize one's work.
And the seemingly constant campaign cycle, aided and abetted by cable and radio shows whose ratings may depend on reaching small but highly partisan members of the electorate, coarsens the debate.
Of course, I do not mean to suggest that civility requires us to accept the unacceptable. Good manners, graciousness, and avoiding undue offense must not prevent the telling of unpleasant truths. If they do, then we are left with nothing more than polite but meaningless discourse devoid of passion and principle.
When Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith went to the Senate floor 60 years ago to deliver her famous "Declaration of Conscience," she did not do so to demonize Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy but to denounce his actions. She certainly gave him great offense but she spoke the truth about his tactics of ruining reputations, crushing free speech, and smearing his opponents. Telling the truth about Senator McCarthy's conduct in strong, tough language was far more important than worrying about offending him.
Similarly, President Reagan undoubtedly offended Soviet Premier Gorbachev when he described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and called upon Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." And President Reagan was roundly criticized here at home by those who accused him of being uncivil, insensitive, and aggressive. As with Senator Smith's legendary speech against McCarthyism, however, President Reagan's willingness to speak the truth and to challenge the Soviets was much more important than sustaining a polite but ultimately meaningless and inconsequential discourse.
In contrast, consider the House member from my party who interrupted President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress a year ago by yelling "You lie!" Or the House Democratic member whose contribution to the health care debate consisted of asserting that Republicans had a two-word plan - "Die Quickly." These are decidedly uncivil acts, designed not to reveal the truth but simply to cause offense.
In thinking about President Reagan, it is worth remembering that it was his fundamental commitment to civility that allowed him to work so well with Speaker Tip O'Neill and to forge a genuine friendship with him. His belief in the power of political civility also led to his formulation of the 11th Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Republican."
But President Reagan also understood that there were times when civility for civility's sake is not the premiere value.
So where does this leave us?
Those of you sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting my sure-fire remedy for this problem can relax. I have no miracle cure.
Finding a cure requires us to first identify the disease. Students of American culture might ask whether incivility is a Washington phenomenon or a reflection of changing behavior in our society at large. In posing that question, I am reminded of the response former Senator Lowell Weicker gave to an unhappy constituent. When the constituent angrily denounced Senator Weicker and his colleagues, saying "you are all a bunch of liars, thieves, and womanizers," Sen. Weicker calmly replied, "Well, it is, after all, a representative form of government."
I will not try to play sociologist and weigh in on this issue except to say that there are indications that as a people we are becoming less civil. I cite as evidence the popularity of attack journalism on cable television, the growing incidence of bullying in schools, the use of the Internet to smear those one does not like, and the audience appeal of programs in which people are fired or voted off islands. A better social historian than I might conclude that these are simply contemporary manifestations of an ongoing facet of our culture, but at a minimum they demonstrate that we are not becoming measurably nicer to each other.
I am more confident in offering the observation that even if Washington leads the nation in incivility, it is not likely to change until those outside Washington demand it. I believe in the maxim that what gets rewarded gets done, and for those of us in Congress, reelection is the ultimate reward. Voting out of office, or not electing in the first place, those who put partisanship over progress, stridency over statesmanship, and conflict over compromise will produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not to win the debate.
A return to civility and a spirit of compromise must be driven by the voters and is not inevitable. To keep around those of us who bridge the partisan divide will require the energetic support of opinion leaders who say they want a less confrontational, more effective government.
It may not be easy to feel passionate about civility and compromise, but it is easy to feel passionate about a vibrant, just, and prosperous America. To achieve that end, however, we need to get passionate about electing legislators who not only work hard but work together.
Not long ago, I happened upon an amazing document by one of our founders. It is George Washington's Rules of Civility, a transcription of various guides to etiquette, written when Washington was but 16 years old.
There are 110 points. First of all, be respectful. Two - if you itch, be careful where you scratch. Three - don't scare your friends. Four - in the presence of others, avoid humming or drumming your fingers. I cannot tell you how wonderful it would be if humming and drumming were the greatest threats to civility in the Senate.
It is not until number 110 that young George got to the heart of the matter - labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
That little spark lights our way much more brightly than bomb-throwing, scorched-earth, incendiary political rhetoric ever will.
When Adi Ignatius invited me to participate in this forum, he said that there is something about the Cathedral that seems to facilitate thoughtful, civil discussions. That prompted me to suggest to him that conducting Senate debates on issues of note in this peaceful setting might be the most effective way to elevate the level of discourse and restore civility.
But mindful of the adage that God helps those who help themselves, waiting for divine intervention is probably not the wisest strategy. Unfortunately, helping ourselves out of this problem is going to take what it always takes, namely, hard work on the part of those who are committed to the future of this country. And, we need people like you, who cared enough to come to this forum, to be among the leaders of that effort if we are to have any chance of success.