The level of uncivility in the political rhetoric today is reaching frightening proportions. Today's Boston Globe includes a timely column by Derrick Jackson, urging Republicans "to find someone with courage to disarm the rhetoric, before someone reloads for real." Peggy Noonan writes in an excellent column in today's Wall Street Journal that leaders of both parties need to get everyone to "lower the temperature," before something bad happens. They are both right.
As an experienced litigator, I know how difficult it can be to rein in uncivility once it takes hold. We fight hard both in and out of court because we believe in our clients' causes and want to win. All too often, vigorous advocacy crosses the line and becomes personal attack. Bar associations have adopted aspirational codes of civility to help prevent inappropriate behavior between opposing counsel. In one of my cases a few years ago, a Magistrate Judge admonished counsel to "rise above" the strong feelings on each side that had resulted in occasional outbursts and fits of rage. (He held those more senior lawyers among us out to the younger team members as examples of lawyers who did not engage in uncivil conduct because years of experience had "beaten [us] down," a characterization I didn't like but have not forgotten.)
In litigation, uncivility among counsel disserves their clients' interests. While some clients want to know that their lawyers are vigorously championing their causes, savvy clients know that it only wastes time, costs them money, and makes their cases more difficult to manage. I recently had the opportunity to serve as Special Master in a hotly contested business litigation matter. My job was to serve in the role of a judge on a number of pretrial disputes concerning the discovery process. The counsel on the case were excellent lawyers, hard working, highly skilled, very smart, and worthy advocates. Occasionally, however, a counsel's argument during a hearing would become overly heated and ad hominem, and I would have to "lower the temperature," to use Noonan's phrase. Serving as Special Master allowed me to see things from a judge's perspective, and it couldn't have been clearer that a lawyer who crosses that line between zealous advocacy and personal attack loses credibility. The louder an argument becomes, the less effective it is.
The same can be true in the realm of politics. Patrick Kennedy's recent tirade about the absence of the press from hearings about America's involvement in foreign wars exemplifies the ineffectiveness of emotional debate. Shouts across the aisle may rally troops on either extreme, but they hardly promote good government, and only obscure the real truths behind pending legislation or national policy. The "great silent majority" conjured up by Richard Nixon to support his presidential policies may have been a creature of his self-serving imagination, but who doesn't believe today that there is a vast political center, and that it is disaffected by the rants and raves of fringe elements in either party? At a time when the issues our nation faces are both serious and complex, what we need is rational debate, not childish name calling. But in too many circles, the emotions just get hotter, and the rhetoric fans the flames of possible violence and unrest.
We say that we are one nation, indivisible. All of us - left, right and center - need to recognize that national unity, indeed nationhood itself, is a greater priority than any single issue or group of issues on which the political parties or some elements within them may disagree, no matter how strong and sincerely held those disagreements are. We need to solve our problems in a bipartisan way, calmly, logically, democratically, and civilly, and put aside the rhetoric, ignorance and anger that serves only to divide our country and cloud our judgment. We need to "rise above" the unseemly threats and calls to action, and understand that in a democracy, we ordinarily have to accept the rule of the majority when we find ourselves on the other side.
Jackson and Noonan are right. Our political leaders must stop adding to the problem, and begin calming people down. Now. There is no time to lose.
As an experienced litigator, I know how difficult it can be to rein in uncivility once it takes hold. We fight hard both in and out of court because we believe in our clients' causes and want to win. All too often, vigorous advocacy crosses the line and becomes personal attack. Bar associations have adopted aspirational codes of civility to help prevent inappropriate behavior between opposing counsel. In one of my cases a few years ago, a Magistrate Judge admonished counsel to "rise above" the strong feelings on each side that had resulted in occasional outbursts and fits of rage. (He held those more senior lawyers among us out to the younger team members as examples of lawyers who did not engage in uncivil conduct because years of experience had "beaten [us] down," a characterization I didn't like but have not forgotten.)
In litigation, uncivility among counsel disserves their clients' interests. While some clients want to know that their lawyers are vigorously championing their causes, savvy clients know that it only wastes time, costs them money, and makes their cases more difficult to manage. I recently had the opportunity to serve as Special Master in a hotly contested business litigation matter. My job was to serve in the role of a judge on a number of pretrial disputes concerning the discovery process. The counsel on the case were excellent lawyers, hard working, highly skilled, very smart, and worthy advocates. Occasionally, however, a counsel's argument during a hearing would become overly heated and ad hominem, and I would have to "lower the temperature," to use Noonan's phrase. Serving as Special Master allowed me to see things from a judge's perspective, and it couldn't have been clearer that a lawyer who crosses that line between zealous advocacy and personal attack loses credibility. The louder an argument becomes, the less effective it is.
The same can be true in the realm of politics. Patrick Kennedy's recent tirade about the absence of the press from hearings about America's involvement in foreign wars exemplifies the ineffectiveness of emotional debate. Shouts across the aisle may rally troops on either extreme, but they hardly promote good government, and only obscure the real truths behind pending legislation or national policy. The "great silent majority" conjured up by Richard Nixon to support his presidential policies may have been a creature of his self-serving imagination, but who doesn't believe today that there is a vast political center, and that it is disaffected by the rants and raves of fringe elements in either party? At a time when the issues our nation faces are both serious and complex, what we need is rational debate, not childish name calling. But in too many circles, the emotions just get hotter, and the rhetoric fans the flames of possible violence and unrest.
We say that we are one nation, indivisible. All of us - left, right and center - need to recognize that national unity, indeed nationhood itself, is a greater priority than any single issue or group of issues on which the political parties or some elements within them may disagree, no matter how strong and sincerely held those disagreements are. We need to solve our problems in a bipartisan way, calmly, logically, democratically, and civilly, and put aside the rhetoric, ignorance and anger that serves only to divide our country and cloud our judgment. We need to "rise above" the unseemly threats and calls to action, and understand that in a democracy, we ordinarily have to accept the rule of the majority when we find ourselves on the other side.
Jackson and Noonan are right. Our political leaders must stop adding to the problem, and begin calming people down. Now. There is no time to lose.
Comments
Post a Comment