Our Values: Is civil discourse in Congress possible with some 'moral imagination'?
Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma
Editor's note: This is the third in Dr. Wayne E. Baker's series this week on "moral imagination," originally published on OurValues.org.
Empathy and moral imagination are intertwined in Obama’s worldview. In The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that empathy “is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule —not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes.” Moral imagination is the demanding act of stretching empathy to include those once excluded.
In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, members of Congress are taking steps to stretch their moral imagination. U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (a Republican from Oklahoma) and Chuck Schumer (a Democrat from New York) announced that they will sit together during the State of the Union address next week.
Charles Schumer, D-New York
So far, almost 20 percent of their fellow Senators plan to do the same. Members of the House may do the same.
It’s a small step, mostly symbolic. But this symbolic break with the tradition of seating by party lines requires moral imagination. Maybe it’s just sitting in somebody else’s seat, not standing in somebody else’s shoes. But it’s a start, coming as it does in the wake of concerns that political incivility was a proximate cause of alleged shooter Jared Loughner’s rampage.
What do you make of this small act of moral imagination?
Is it the start of something more?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the senior faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com.
Comments
David Briegel
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 1:38 a.m.
buggy, Imagine if a Dem had shouted such an epitath at the lying Shrub?
bugjuice
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
Pardon me, the outburst "you lie" was made by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson and not the defeated Tea Party candidate from Alaska, Joe Miller.
bugjuice
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
President Obama criticized the Supreme Courts "Citizen United" decision to allow unlimited corporate campaign contributions. He did not call them "Capitalist Lackeys" or unfairly accuse them of meddling in the political process. On the other hand, Joe Miller accused the President, called him a "liar", without evidence and without an opportunity to answer or debate his character assassination. Ask yourself which was "uncivil"? If you criticize Obama for fairly and civilly criticizing the Supreme Court on a real issue, then you must also condemn Joe Miller for his childish outburst and false accusation.
bugjuice
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
We all should be indignant when lies, myths, half truths, misinformation, and diversionary tactics are used in debate and discussion. We should also be indignant when the same strategies are used to describe those who think different than we do. There is nothing wrong with vigorous spirited debate and discussion but let's leave the distracting and diversionary tactics of name calling, gross exaggeration, hyperbole and just making up stuff in ways that contribute nothing to the debate. Let this effort begin with me, but please make a pact with yourself to do and act likewise the next time we talk collegially about the issues.
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
Well, at least they don't engage in duels any more. It seems like it has been a little over a hundred years since that practice was abandoned. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_duels" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_duels</a> So, we are making progress.
David Briegel
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
The 2nd amendment right wingers wish we did engage in duels! "lock and load" and "keep 'em in your crosshairs". Come on, embrace the conservative and republican position. you voted for 'em!!
John B.
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
I think that the predictable comment above indicates that the answer is probably, sadly, no. As the income-disparity and wealth-disparity both continue to increase in this country (and probably at an accelerated rate, given the current political climate/trends), we will continue to have primarily bought-and-paid-for Congressional Politicians that "divide and conquer" an increasingly less-well-educated population, using distortions, lies and obfuscation. Same old same old.....
Forever27
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
nail on the head. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Joe Hood
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
I think watching this intermingling at the State of the Union will make for great entertainment, especially after last time when the president was attacking the supremes (perhaps we can rival the antics of British Parliament). At which point in American history has there been more civility in Congress (absent particular national events)? I don't think this is the start of anything new. If a party had two years of unfettered control of both houses of Congress and the executive and you used that advantage to the max, the loyal opposition has some gumption to push that pendulum back. This civility would have had to be asked for last year or two years ago. To ask now that the advantage has been lost is hollow.
bugjuice
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
I suppose than means that when the President mentioned that the Supreme Court essentially legislated from the bench on their Citizens United decision when Obama criticized them is equal to Joe Miller attacking the Presidents character when he shouted "You Lie" from the peanut gallery.
David Briegel
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 11:03 p.m.
Golly Joe, where were you from 2001-2006? The sad part is that the truth is treated equal to the lie.