Can Gov. Cox’s ‘Disagree Better’ initiative work?

Polls show citizens want more courtesy and cooperation in politics

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Recent political events in Washington, D.C., and in Utah demand greater scrutiny of the behavior of our elected and appointed officials and how they talk to each other and to citizens. Since your columnists are purportedly in the communications business, we have our opinions.

In light of the chaos and backbiting in Washington, including the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Gov. Spencer Cox’s “Disagree Better” initiative with the National Governors Association appears timely and is receiving more attention. Is this initiative just feel-good, fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, or is it a substantive, needed objective in today’s political climate?

Pignanelli: “The toppling of Speaker Kevin McCarthy is so ... below the country … without heightened meaning. It’s as if Julius Caesar were stabbed to death in the Forum by the Marx Brothers.” — Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal.

Advocates of the Cox initiative possess millennia of history which prove respect toward adversaries generally delivers positive results. Two recent pertinent examples surround the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. The founders hoped holders of this constitutional office would rise above political fray. Unfortunately, this intent went awry — especially by the last two occupants.

Had Nancy Pelosi created a Jan. 6 commission that was balanced with requested Republican members, the deliberations and conclusions would have survived attacks of partisanship and better served national interests. McCarthy, by demonizing Democrats before and after the government funding votes, diminished any obligation by them to retain him.

The initiative should do more than just admonish rudeness but educate voters that nastiness exhibited on television and social media accomplishes nothing. Our nation advances when respect is exchanged between friends and foes. The most successful leaders, regardless of party, are disciples of this philosophy.

Webb: My first reaction was that the Cox initiative was rather lightweight and too obvious. I thought it would be routinely ignored by the boorish, warring political factions at all levels of politics. And perhaps it will be ignored.

But upon further reflection and understanding what Cox really intends, I like the initiative a lot. It has real substance and it can make a difference. It should be studied and adopted by everyone who has strong political opinions.

Cox isn’t suggesting that we should all set aside our strong feelings, give in, hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.” To the contrary, Cox fully recognizes that deep-seated disagreements exist, that people feel their side is right, and they have no interest in surrendering.

The problem isn’t that we disagree, but it’s the way we disagree that is so toxic to our society. My wife and I sometimes disagree, but we don’t disparage each other, use harsh language, or cause permanent damage or resentment. Cox is saying that we can disagree without being offensive and without destroying relationships.

Respectful disagreement would make a big difference in politics and in all sectors of society. It would preserve relationships, reduce acrimony and tension, and ultimately solve more of the serious problems we face.

Congressman John Curtis announced he will not seek the U.S. Senate seat that will be open when Sen. Mitt Romney retires. How will this impact the Senate race? Could his decision increase the dignity of the political process?

Pignanelli: Well-informed political operatives understand Curtis would have been a formidable candidate. A tough campaigner, he is beloved in a congressional district that promised a strong performance in a GOP primary. Also, Curtis has access to national funding resources.

Thus, his decision to stay in the House was made through a sincere desire to pursue what was best for the state, and not fear. Indeed, his announcement carried in this paper was so articulate, visionary and unselfish that it rose to that ultimate of adjectives — “Lincolnesque.” All Utahns are grateful Curtis set an example of noble public service.

The campaign is now an open field for state House Speaker Brad Wilson and Mayor Trent Staggs. Other potential contenders face catch-up challenges.

Webb: Curtis is a terrific human being and an excellent member of Congress. He would make a very fine U.S. senator. But it would have been a tough battle. Wilson has run a masterful early campaign, rounding up a who’s who list of impressive supporters, most of Utah’s top Republicans, and corralling a load of money.

Had Curtis jumped in earlier, I suspect a lot of those leaders would not have endorsed Wilson so soon. But Wilson moved very quickly and is now the clear front-runner. It’s still very early in the race, and more candidates will likely emerge, but Wilson looks formidable.

Polls indicate that citizens want greater courtesy and cooperation among politicians. Is there anything they can do?

Pignanelli: Communications from campaigns and special interest groups are often caustic and denigrating toward political opponents. The wonderful and terrifying thing about democracy is when citizens despise political antics, they can blame the person looking back in the mirror. Only when voters hold candidates responsible for toxicity will the environment change.

Webb: This is a problem for political leaders, but also for political followers. It’s a problem at city council, school board and county commission meetings. It’s a particular problem on social media. If we ordinary citizens set a good example ourselves of “disagreeing better,” and expect the same from our elected officials, then our communities, states and nation would be better places to live.