Rmpbs; WGBH Forum Network; Colorado State of Mind: A Call for Civility

Good evening for mucking about in PBS some Cynthia Hessen Welcome to Colorado state of mind. Tonight a conversation on the evolution of public discourse civility. It's a topic we return to from time to time on this program. And the deadly shooting spree in Tucson touched off many more conversations around the country. Our guests this evening are three people who have been and are in various positions of local and state leadership. And here they are first from Denver. I mean Romanoff used to be the speaker of the House of Representatives in Colorado I work now for an international development organization in Lakewood called Idea. We equipped small scale farmers in Africa Asia and Latin America with the technology and training they need to climb out of extreme poverty. Very interesting. And joining us from Grand Junction. Hi I'm Teresa Cruz I'm currently the mayor of the city a Grand Junction I've served on the Grand Junction City council for six years I'm now in my second term. I'm also a medical researcher by training and so I've engaged in in debates both in a political and in the scientific arena so

very glad to be here. Glad to have you. And from Broomfield. Hello I'm Sean Mitchell. State senator representing Broomfield Adams and weld counties. I'm vice chairman of the Mitchell family known for enjoying a good debate and sometimes having my civility called into question by my teenage children. Thanks for being here and Kelly Bruff from the Denver chamber was also to be with us here but was sick unfortunately and we are going to go ahead with our three guests. I want to say that we didn't invite them here to discuss only politics and government although civility there is almost certainly more productive. We also want to recognize and discuss the role of the media in this churn and as well as we the people ourselves as we participate in all kinds of social media. So we know that in that initial wave of shock and partial information a lot of people on Saturday January started speculating about the motivation of the Tucson killer. And it wasn't a big leap to guess that it had something to do with politics with the attack on a congresswoman and then people

began attacking the most prevalent rhetoric that we're familiar with from both extreme ends of the political spectrum. It was sometime later that we began to hear more information indicating that Jared Lochner his motive wasn't a bit clear. But when the president went to the Tucson memorial last week he said the civility conversation was one worth having despite the tragic catalyst. You've heard that Colorado Senator Mark Udall is urging mixed seating at the State of the Union event. And so here we have some other public servants and I'm just wondering when you think about this. Well this is this polarized recta rhetoric that I'm referring to. Is that a big obstacle to getting everything done. I might have a different take on it Cynthia. Let's agree that good manners are always better than bad manners. But I think it probably misstates history to suggest that we're uniquely nasty today and that we there was a golden age where everyone was nice to everyone in fact our politics used to be more colorful nastier and even more violent they were Dools they were canings in the House chamber. Even in the sixties Hey

hey LBJ how many children did you kill today. So yes just one war the Vietnam War. Strong feelings are not new in politics and that's because politics address Important Subjects our lives our freedoms our resources our time and opportunities. There is a strong feeling in vigorous debate today but I think there should be about some of the important issues that are turning points in our country. And I agree with you. As far as our history goes and I think I'd like to follow on your point that these are important issues and we need to have a good discussion and debate. I guess my biggest concern when we retreat into calling names slurs labels on on people or on ideas is that we some of us then fail to hear the discussion and debate and we focus on on easy labels

and really don't spend the time listening to each other. And that's my biggest concern about a lack of civility. Is it. It closes our ear sometimes. I know Andrew needs to jump into the conversation but let me just say I certainly agree with you no one is defending slurs or name calling and I'm talking about passionate substance and vigorous representation of your beliefs. I think that's where the debate has gotten off track I agree with both of you other vigorous debate a healthy exchange of ideas is what the system of government is all about. Where I think. Public officials frankly and candidates voters to some extent have done a disservice is to attack the motives. Label as traitorous individuals with whom they disagree and I'll give an example. I differed sharply with President Bush George W. Bush. Most of his policies but I never believed that he actually wanted America to fail or that he woke up in the morning trying to set the country on a path towards destruction. I don't believe that now I

believe the far left was wrong for example to call General Petraeus General Betray Us. And I think the far right is wrong to suggest somehow that Barack Obama is a traitor to America or wishes the country ill and that he is the extreme we're talking about. If you listen to Colorado Public Radio You may have heard a piece this week about Darrell. I said the congressman he's taking over a committee. That gives him the power essentially to get anyone in there to for an investigation so it can be used very politically. Apparently he has set the ground rules that it's going to be nothing before President Obama took office. So there will be you know none of this investigation into the where was he born and all of these things that have had lingered so. That seems like a good sign doesn't it. Well sure we should focus on current issues and the actual policy choices that are in front of us today. But some of those policy differences are fundamental. There are people that are trying to make our system more like a European

social welfare democracy. Don't name call don't insult anyone's motives but you can vigorously argue that America has a different tradition a different set of guiding values and aspirations. And there is a fundamental problem with trying to make us a more socialist nation. If I use that word then people immediately bristle and get angry but I think that's what's at stake. Freedom free enterprise individual autonomy versus a more controlled and planned economy. All of you have been in situations I'm sorry to say go ahead and make your comment. Oh I was just going to say I would like to say that I think. Maybe to avoid the discussion about about our own personal fundamental beliefs but get back to the idea of how we discuss these beliefs. And one of my concerns again is that and this may be getting to your question Cynthia about the role of the media. We've become so focused on 30 second sound bites are now maybe 20 second sound bites short clips we don't

focus on an in-depth discussion of issues and those that system lends itself to. And uncivil discourse I think because having the civil discourse really requires us to stop and listen and think and go in depth with issues. There are so many directions we can go with this but I want to go back to Senator Mitchell. I know that you use Facebook to discuss various things you have discussed ability. Do you find that in that world people are brought up as they seem to be portrayed. You know it's interesting that you mention Facebook which is probably an excessive indulgence of mine. I think it's representative of modern media and the Internet and more remote interaction where it is easy to lose sight of mutual humanity. And there's just a name on the page and we hurl insults back and forth sometimes and I sometimes have to put the brakes on discussions and ask people not to be so pointed and so personal so I bow back to Reese's point. Name calling is not

defensible. Personal nastiness back and forth. Reasonable or constructive in the discussion I think the Internet is a tremendous tool for disseminating information but also misinformation or outright dissent from ation You know Mark Twain writing 100 years before the invention of the technology said a lie can make it's way halfway around the world while the truth is still tying its shoes. Or maybe said. Well the truth is still putting on it's pants but I would say I think that's the challenge now is how to sort fact from fiction. It is indeed kind of wonder you know who is bothering to do much of that because it is very convenient if you'd like to only consume media that backs up what you think already. I think that's another temptation of the age there is so much more information available and it's so specialized to different websites. Unlike the old days when there were three big networks and a few radio stations the left can pick their favorite websites for ammunition the right picks their favorite websites for ammunition. We all talk to like minded people and then

shoot at each other across a great divide in that. And most people do well in the device. Yeah yeah. On the other hand again we're dealing with such important fundamental issues. People used to resolve these differences with wars and with bullets and with violence and the fact that we have a republic that for over 200 years has been generally peaceful and. Peaceful transition of power after every election we're doing something right and sometimes I think we're too concerned. Just because feelings are strong or argument is vigorous that it's somehow not healthy. You know these are these are important human questions and argument will be vigorous. So in historical perspective do you two agree that it will be seen as another phase of many that we've been through. You know I didn't serve for 200 years it just feels that way but I have heard from a number of retiring senators who suggested that that chamber of particular used to be a place in which

compromise was more possible and moderation was more in demand. You know I've heard that from folks like Alan Simpson and. Even Gary Hart that suggested that the statesmanship that characterized some of his colleagues in the past is. Now passed out of the U.S. Capitol. I JUST A REMINDER THAT IT least in this country we did have a period of time in the late 60s and early 70s when. Cities were burning and people were were. Discussing or displaying their concerns in a very violent way so it could happen and has happened in this country. But aside from the issue of name calling or angry discussions the idea that we tend to polarize ourselves and not really spend any time talking to people who disagree with us or trying to spend more time understanding the other side's issues is a concern to me because I think

as the media gets more dispersed we can choose what we listen to what we read. We tend I think we're we're becoming more polarized. That doesn't mean necessarily violently but it certainly makes it more difficult to create solutions. What about your personal safety the two of you who have served in the legislature did you. We know there is security there did you ever feel you need to be more separated from people you didn't know. I really don't. In fact I think the metal detector at the entrances to the Capitol is. I kind of wish he would go away and go back to the open public entrances we used to have. If I can go back to kind of the fundamental point you are making though about that tense climate perhaps the shooting in Arizona having something to do with our political rhetoric. I think that argument has been abandoned by most observers say they realize the individual was mentally ill and that politics and talk radio and those things just

played no part and if anything his views skew more liberal than conservative. But what's interesting is that the media all immediately jumped on and started criticizing conservatives for conservative rhetoric when in fact there is just as much harshness in aggression and criticism shrill debate coming from the left but it seems like whenever the media is stroking its chin and tut tutting about civility it's really almost always about vocal conservatives. If conservatives are scoring points or winning debates or winning elections then the media is saying we're getting too uncivil. You know there's one other missing part of the debate that follows this tragedy and as we mourn the victims and offer our condolences to those who are grieving and pray for the for the health of those who are still recovering we ought to be having a conversation in this country in my view about mental illness and a massive effort to treat folks who are suffering. From a mental illness that's that's not happening to my knowledge right now. And that's a good segue because we have begun to hear more about this. And the question

was I think for everyone and everyone had some sense this college told him not to come back until he had a note that he was OK to be there. But who is in charge of enforcing making sure he did what he was supposed to do because he was 22. There's been some discussion by law enforcement officials that suggested that we relax the standards by which they're able to. Apprehend folks or confine folks who pose a threat to themselves or to others. This would be if there is any good to come out of this horrible event I think a useful national conversation because I want to agree with with Andrew the most important lessons we can learn from this are about holes in our mental health system and the social safety net in fact there were lots of indications that this guy was dangerous and threats he had made. But law enforcement either chose not to act or felt powerless to act and we need to take a look at public safety and how we're protecting the most vulnerable and not well members of society from themselves and us from

them. What do you think about that. Well I would agree that we need to take a serious look at how we deal with mental illness in this country. I have spent a lot of time in the healthcare arena. I sit on the Mesa County Board of Health and we spend a lot of time talking about physical health and how we deal with that very often the issue of mental health or paying for treatment for people with mental illnesses gets shoved to the side as if it's not part of that health conversation. So I agree we need to put that back into our conversation. And another telling part of this whole episode is some of these weaknesses in the mental health system of long been known in calling it on and worried about. But that isn't where the first media commentators hit within hours of you know people are still being seen in the emergency room and first responders are on the scene in Arizona and Paul Krugman of The New York Times is blogging that this was almost certainly

political and it Sarah Palin's fault. And you just sport and ugly. National wave of essentially libel and slander and what was very interesting about that was it was political advocates calling for civility by accusing their political opponents of being accomplices to murder. You know the it's possible that both things are true here that this act was the work of a ranged man irrespective of political motivations or the chatter that surrounds the country. And it's also equally possible that it's not helpful for political candidates to put crossers or targets or to talk about reloading and taking out political opponents. But I actually have to reach both conclusions separate. And. Rightly And I think it's in our political conversations. We clearly see that that division between is as you said challenge conservative and liberal. But if we look at our election process we also see it

in our party. Discussions of candidates people pointing fingers at each other and slandering Sometimes we know that. Absolutely absolutely. And no it isn't always just a conservative liberal discussion and I got something good here mentioned when you talked about the sort of the military metaphors crosshairs and. I think there is a risk of overreaction to the point of silliness here. We have well and I'm not accusing ender of this personally but the other night on CNN a commentator talked about it was either a targeted district or someone was in the crosshairs. And then he caught himself and apologized and said we don't want to use those words anymore. This is just such an over psychological reaction. For decades we have talked about campaigns and targeted districts and there have been gun sights on different political districts both on the right and on the left. This kind of military metaphor just isn't going to push a crazy person to go

kill there. There are tragedies that may happen but it's not because sports or military provides medical metaphors for political conversation. And we shouldn't pretend that it does because we're at risk of sort of the equivalent of suspending first graders for having a paring knife in their lunch box after a school shooting. We're importing that same kind of overprotective mentality into our political discourse. We need to be adults. You know if Kelly Bref are here I would be asking her about this pledge that the Denver Chamber of Commerce put together. It actually started with the group of people who were campaigning against those three fiscal amendments that were on the ballot in the fall and apparently in working together these labor groups and nonprofits and businesses and you know total coalition decided that the thing to do was everybody sign on to continue working together as best they can and if you go to the Denver chamber website you can see who has signed on to this pledge. What do you think of that in the legislature will it make a difference.

I hope so. You know when I was speaker of the house I tried hard to be sure that speaker were guilty will follow to enforce a rule that says you can criticize a bill but you can't attack the motives of the sponsor. And it may seem like a quaint old fashioned notion that this sort of decorum would be a matter of house hopefully Senate protocol. But I think it's helpful. There's one other point I want to make and you know kids pick up on these cues to remember leading children and tours of the Capitol and taking them to the house for and they would notice everybody yelling at each other or worse yet not listening to one another at all as Terry was saying earlier. And they would say Well we're we're our folks tell us we're supposed to listen why is it nobody here actually listening to one another. It's a tough tough answer. You know your comments about the effort in the legislature to get people to work well together at the Grand Junction City Council at one point decided that one of

our rules was going to be that we would assume positive intent and the purpose of that was was to get people to to take the personal out of it and listen to the argument and assume that we were all there for the same purpose. The good of our citizens in Grand Junction and look at the issue not the person. I think that that is always a good reminder and I think that's one of the positive things that can come out of the chamber effort. Oh albeit maybe a little more personal and conciliatory here I've I've crossed the line a time or two. I've been both uncivil and forceful in debate and I know the difference and if you jab someone if you insult someone that's uncivil. But I also think that when you are arguing forcefully sometimes they don't like it just because your arguments are effective. Sometimes it feels like civility is willed it is a shield. Stop arguing against my position of being uncivil right. Yeah yeah.

I don't the ideological name calling I think is a substitute for the kind of effective argument that Sean's talking about I remember in a committee once I was promoting a proposal to help more kids get coverage through the children's health plan and one of the legislators in opposition of that proposal accused me of promoting socialism so I gave her a long speech about the Romanovs family's opposition to socialism and communism back in Mother Russia but I never had it. Do you think you know it seems to me that we frequently in Colorado are either. What were obviously always comparing us with the people this week in the legislature a bill very much like Arizona is in terms of immigration enforcement came along and so Arizona was you know mentioned in that discussion. Do you feel as though Colorado is quite a bit different than other states or are the country as a whole. There are similarities and differences obviously and I think that Bill and your reference to it in the context of civility is a good example. I think it's possible

to debate what our border policy should be and whether or not government officials should get proper identification of individuals without assuming incivility or bad motives on the part of the sponsors and supporters of that bill I can't resist going back to make one simple observation. I'm going to talk about the Romanov family's long resistance to communism in a perhaps originally they were but they've since fallen prey to Stockholm syndrome. Oh yeah. Oh well all right I'm going to be civil to you with that. If you're just going to write though I insist everybody come up with a last thought we're running out of time and I would I would just like to hear what you think is going to happen in the days going forward weeks going forward. Does it. Does it really matter will this change anything to reset. You want to start I don't know that I change things but I hope that it raises some awareness about how we have discussions and debates and gets people to start thinking about the issues and

not worrying about so much about the person. Senator Mitchell It will change a little reminders help some time soon when you want to shake your fist maybe you'll remember remember not to get hit won't bend the course sharply but might raise the tone a little. And Speaker Romanoff speaker as I said my hope without excusing the gunman or politicizing the crime. My hope is that this tragedy prompts a real national commitment a bipartisan commitment. To mental health I hope. But two things I agree with Andrew that the most valuable thing that can come out of the Arizona episode is an examination of our mental health system. But I hope the media does some reflection on the role it played piling on in fact Americans reaction generally was fair and even handed and wait till the facts are in but the media the media immediately started dog piling on conservatives and blaming Tea Party members and others. And it was it was faults direction it had. It just wasn't should have been part of the discussion.

Do you agree. I mean I would have said that everybody started jumping at me from both sides of the media that people were suddenly in an argument about well my feeling was I mean for example Sarah Palin released a statement defending herself and now she's being blamed for joining the brawl. Well once you're a HUGE of being an accomplice to murder you have to defend yourself. And you know my my suspicion is that there is a temptation to try to draw some larger meaning from this tragedy it's tough to dismiss this is. As such a senseless act. People want to find a pattern. And. It's possible that this conversation. Untethered from the events in Tucson will produce some good results like those we've discussed. I've joined that last thought by Andrew. Sometimes big things happen by serendipity and human frailty. There may not be political lessons there. You know wild and free world ugly things can still happen.

I think you are doing this evening it was a great discussion that's Colorado's state of mind this week. You can see this program again or check out what's happening on the discussion board at our website. Thank you to Andrew Romanoff and to Teresa Coons and to Senator Shawn Mitchell. Next week How about a state of mind has a new cousin so to speak. We'll begin an occasional series called Colorado quarterly Rocky Mountain PBS CEO Doug price and PBS board member Tim Foster of Mesa State College will be here with Dottie Lamm and Lynn gang at the Women's College. The provocative topic for them is whether U.S. education is inadvertently causing boys to fail. I hope you'll tune in for that next Friday at 7:30 we'll be back the following week. I'm Cynthia hasn't goodnight. I co-wrote a bed with some folks in an Aspen Institute a fellowship called The Road Fellowship in public leadership as Gabby Giffords was a member of that post. I've known her for about a dozen years and one of the things that she said and we wrote. Is that the.

Advent of the automatic garage door opener and the. Food. The Decline and Fall of the front porch in America has sort of left. Neighbors isolated and could be.