Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bipartisan citizens panel issues new Dignity Index scores

Tim Walz speaking at a rally

The Dignity Index scored politicians, such as Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on their language.

Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

UNITE, a nonprofit created to ease the country's political divisions, on Sept. 20 released the second round of scores from its national citizen's panel analyzing political speech. The latest results offer support for founder Tim Shriver's idea of a political "dignity strategy."

"When our political parties use the contempt strategy — demonizing their opponents to energize their supporters — it has an unintended effect," said Shriver, who founded UNITE in 2018. "It turns away the voters they need to win. The candidate that can treat the other side with dignity has a better chance of winning the swing voters who may decide this election."


In 2018, More in Common published its Hidden Tribes report, coining the term "exhausted majority" for the two-thirds of Americans who were tired of politics, more flexible on their policies and more open to compromise. More in Common's latest survey found that now three in four Americans say "they feel exhausted by the division in politics."

The national citizens panel's scores, explanations and comments are showing that panelists on the left and right can agree on the presence of dignity or contempt in political speech no matter who is speaking or what they're saying. And the panelists not only recognize dignity; they respond to it.

Ninety-one percent of our panelists agree that "It's important to me that politicians and media personalities treat other Americans with dignity and respect." Another 81 percent say, "I lose respect for politicians and media personalities who can't treat their opponents with dignity and respect."

"The point of scoring with the Dignity Index is not to judge or condemn anyone for contempt, or even to give anyone an award for dignity," said Tom Rosshirt, a Dignity Index co-creator. "It's to train ourselves to see the hidden cause of division — which is treating each other with contempt. People say contempt works, but that's true only when it's disguised as virtue. When contempt is exposed, it backfires."

Scores

Panelists score by matching language from the speech passage with descriptions in the Dignity Index scoring guide.

1. Tim Walz on Donald Trump's character: "Donald Trump is exactly what we knew him to be, we knew exactly what he, his true colors were on full display, it's not his makeup but his character, and I said this 'you saw that caricature of an old man shaking his hands at clouds and telling kids to get off of his yard.' That's what he did. Obsessed with the past and this is what is unforgivable: Rooting against the American people. Rooting against this country."

  • Ninety-one percent of panelists agree that this was contempt.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 3.
  • The reasons given the most were "makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or moral." and "disdains the other side."
  • Eighty-six percent of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of 3.
  • The conservative average score was 2.81, and the Liberal average score was 3.24.

2. Eric Hovde commenting on Sen. Tammy Baldwin's incumbency: "We simply can't afford career politicians who just nod along with the D.C. crowd and get nothing done. It's time to retire Tammy Baldwin and send a real problem solver to Washington."

  • Seventy-eight percent of panelists agree that this was contempt.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 4.
  • The reasons given the most were "will distort or rename an opponent's position to make it sound unappealing" and "We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They don't really share our values."
  • Seventy-five percent of panelists scored within -1 the score of 4.
  • The conservative average score was 3.95, and the liberal average score was 3.8

3. Sen. J.D. Vance on Vice President Kamala Harris and the Ukraine-Russia war: "President Trump is right: What's in our best interest is for the killing to stop. Kamala Harris's incompetence will lead us into World War III."

  • Ninety-six percent of panelists agreed that this was contempt.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 3.
  • The reasons given the most were "makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals" and "disdains the other side."
  • Eighty-six percent of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of 3.
  • The Conservative average score was 2.91, and the liberal average score was 2.48.

4. Nikki Haley challenging the Republican candidates about their rhetoric: "I think it's because Donald Trump and J.D. Vance need to change the way they speak about women. You don't need to call Kamala dumb; she didn't get this far just by accident. She's here, that's what it is — she's a prosecutor. You don't need to talk about intelligence or looks or anything else, just focus on the policies. When you call even a Democrat woman dumb, Republican women get their backs up too. The bottom line is we win on policies."

  • Eighty-three percent of panelists agree this was dignity.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 5.
  • The reason most given was "speaks openly, explaining their views, but never with contempt" and "I share my views with no contempt, so they're easier for others to hear."
  • Sixty-four percent of panelists scored it within +1 of a 5.
  • The conservative average score was a 5.1, and the Liberal average score was 5.4.

5. Conservative commentator Stuart Varney on Harris' small-business policy proposal: "When a political candidate comes up with what I think is a good idea, I have to call it a good idea. And a $50,000 tax cut — not tax cut but tax credit — for small businesses, coupled with less red tape, I gotta say that is a good idea. Regardless of her other tax ideas."

  • Ninety-seven percent of panelists agree this was dignity.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 6.
  • The reasons most given were "can see the good in the other side and will acknowledge their skills and accomplishments" and "we don't let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on."
  • Ninety-seven percent of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of a 6.
  • The conservative average score was 5.62, and the liberal average score was 5.64.

6. Liberal commentator Lawrence O'Donnell on Trump's claim about the safety of New York under a Harris presidency: "Just think about how stupid you have to be to say that. Then think about how stupid you have to be to clap for that."

  • Ninety-six percent of panelists agree this was contempt.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 3.
  • The reasons most given were "makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals" and "disdains the other side."
  • Ninety-two percent of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of 3.
  • The conservative average score was 2.95, and the liberal average score was 3.12.

7. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) on Republicans and Democrats working together: "There are still serious people who understand that the only way to actually move the country forward is when you have reasonable Democrats and reasonable Republicans who compromise and work together — and that's not a dirty word."

  • Ninety-nine percent of the panelists agree this was dignity
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 6.
  • The reasons most given were "We talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share, and using them as a basis for cooperation" and "We don't let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on."
  • 89 percent of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of a 6.
  • The conservative average score was 6.05, and the liberal average score was 5.92.

8. Nathan Clark of Springfield, Ohio, pushing back on hate: "My son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state and even the nation. But don't spin this towards hate. In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way, and be the inspiration. What many people in this community and state and nation are doing is the opposite of what you should be doing. Sure, we have our problems here in Springfield and in the U.S., but does Aiden Clark have anything to do with that?"

  • Ninety-three percent of panelists agree that this was dignity.
  • The most frequently chosen score was a 8.
  • The reasons given the most were "has no sense of moral superiority" and "Everyone is born with inherent worth, so I treat everyone with dignity no matter what."
  • Fifty-five percent of panelists scored within -1 the score of 8.
  • The conservative average score was 6.0, and Liberal average score was 6.64.

The panelists are offered a chance to make comments on different passages and their scores. Here are some notable comments from the above:

  • A panelist on the right in response to Walz's quote: "I feel there's always a proper way/respectful way of saying certain things without using contempt. … Contempt does not help in any situation. It just makes things more complicated. Attacking somebody will bring more attacks."
  • A panelist on the right in response to Slotkin's quote: "Yes, politics in its pure essence is about compromise,"
  • A moderate panelist said in response to Slotkin: "With the politicization of everything these days, all it takes is ONE voice to bring things closer to ‘somewhat’ normal."
  • A panelist on the left in response to O'Donnell's quote: "Calling the other side stupid is not treating them with dignity."
  • A panelist on the right in response to Varney's quote: "In my opinion this is a 6 because we can clearly see the acknowledgement/cooperation when it is a good idea. and I would love to see more people like that. In the world we are living in today, we can see candidates giving great ideas but just because we don't like them we don't acknowledge/ or don't say anything and that's wrong."
  • A panelist on the left in response to Varney's quote: "People should give credit where credit is due. That doesn't mean you agree with everything. But it does give you somewhere to start a conversation."
  • A panelist on the left in response to Varney's quote: "I scored this a 7 based on the person's current political leanings. It takes guts to praise an opponent's idea and certainly can lead to discussions on the subject that ultimately could benefit the country."
  • A panelist on the right in response to Vance's quote: "This comment is a correct sentiment stated poorly. It promotes division, not discussion, and should be avoided if cooperation is to be had."
  • A panelist on the left in response to Vance's quote: "I feel like this statement is pretty disheartening from coming from any candidate or any political person against somebody else."

Read More

Temples and Test-Tubes

Silhouette of man stand on top of mountain and see in the night sky. Galaxy and space. Meditation and astrology. Esoterica and psychology.

Getty Images/Elements of this image furnished by NASA

Temples and Test-Tubes

Since I was old enough to speak, I have been questioning everything around me. The turquoise color of the ocean, what would happen if I slept on a cloud, the enticing smell of Mom’s “signature” box mac and cheese. Thankfully, these questions eventually evolved into more meaningful ones.

I grew up and continue to be a member of the Baháʼí Faith; therefore, the principles of unity, justice, and service guide the way I live my life. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion that strives to achieve a worldwide unification of all races, religions, and cultures. Founded in the 19th century, the religion teaches the oneness of God, the elimination of prejudice, harmony among religions, and the common origin of all past prophets of God.

Keep ReadingShow less

Angelica Salas’s Journey From Undocumented Immigrant to Community Leader at CHIRLA

Angelica Salas has long been a leading advocate for immigrant rights in Los Angeles. Since becoming Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) in 1999, she has transformed the organization into one of the most powerful immigrant-led advocacy groups in the country. Her leadership has redefined what grassroots organizing can look like, mobilizing communities around issues ranging from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to voter outreach and legal services.

Salas’s journey into activism is deeply personal. Born in Durango, Mexico, she arrived in the United States at the age of five, undocumented, to reunite with her parents who had migrated for work. Growing up in Pasadena, California, her family lived in the shadows of deportation until they were able to legalize their status. In 2008, Salas became a U.S. citizen, adding a powerful chapter to a story she shares with many of the people CHIRLA serves. Her own experience navigating the U.S. immigration system informs her commitment to building dignity, not dependency, in the immigrant rights movement. After graduating from Occidental College with a degree in history and sociology, Salas joined CHIRLA in 1995 and became its executive director just four years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

Children with American flags

This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

My colleague, Meghan Monroe, a former teacher and trainer in the Dignity Index, went out to lunch with a friend on the 4th of July. Her friend was late and Meghan found herself waiting outside the restaurant where, to her surprise, a protest march approached. It wasn’t big and it wasn’t immediately clear what the protest was about. There were families and children marching—some flags, and some signs about America being free.

One group of children caught Meghan’s eye as they tugged at their mother while marching down the street. The mom paused and crouched down to speak to the children. Somehow, Meghan could read the situation and realized that the mom was explaining to the children about America—about what it is, about all the different people who make up America, about freedom, about dignity.

“I could just tell that the Mom wanted her children to understand something important, something big. I couldn’t tell anything about her politics. I could just tell that she wanted her children to understand what America can be. I could tell she wanted dignity for her children and for people in this country. It was beautiful.”

As Meghan told me this story, I realized something: that Mom at the protest is a role model for me. The 4th may be over now, but the need to explain to each other what we want for ourselves and our country isn’t.

My wife, Linda, and I celebrated America at the wedding of my godson, Alexander, and his new wife, Hannah. They want America to be a place of love. Dozens of my cousins, siblings, and children celebrated America on Cape Cod.

For them and our extended family, America is a place where families create an enduring link from one generation to the next despite loss and pain.

Thousands of Americans in central Texas confronted the most unimaginable horrors on July 4th. For them, I hope and pray America is a place where we hold on to each other in the face of unbearable pain and inexplicable loss.

Yes. It’s complicated. There were celebrations of all kinds on July 4th—celebrations of gratitude to our military, celebrations of gratitude for nature and her blessings, and sadly, celebrations of hatred too. There are a million more examples of our hopes and fears and visions, and they’re not all happy.

I bet that’s one of the lessons that mom was explaining to her children. I imagine her saying, “America is a place where everyone matters equally. No one’s dignity matters more than anyone else’s. Sometimes we get it wrong. But in our country, we always keep trying and we never give up.”

For the next 12 months as we lead up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we’re going to be hearing a lot about what we want America to be. But maybe the more important question is what we the people are willing to do to fulfill our vision of what we can be. The answer to that question is hiding in plain sight and is as old as the country itself: join with others and do your part, and no part is too small to matter.

At our best, our country is a country of people who serve one another. Some may say that’s out of fashion, but not me. Someone is waiting for each of us—to talk, to share, to join, to care, to lead, to love. And in our time, the superpower we need is the capacity to treat each other with dignity, even when we disagree. Differences of opinion aren’t the problem; in fact, they’re the solution. As we love to say, “There’s no America without democracy and there’s no democracy without healthy debate and there’s no healthy debate without dignity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Party Lines
An illustration to symbolize two divided groups.
Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi

Beyond Party Lines

The American Experiment tested whether groups with diverse interests could unite under a declaration of common principles. In this moment, we face a critical juncture that tests whether distrust and political fervor could drive Americans to abandon or deny everything that unites us.

Henry Bolingbroke contends that party spirit inspires “Animosity and breeds Rancor.” Talking of his countrymen, he wrote, “We likewise derive, not our Privileges (for they were always ours) but a more full and explicit Declaration”; Whigs and Tories can unite on this alone. That Declaration of Ours was penned by Thomas Jefferson when his colonists repelled the redcoats at the Siege of Charleston and when Washington’s troops were awaiting battle in Manhattan. The American Declaration set out those principles, which united the diverse colonies. And the party system, as Bolingbroke said, brought animosity and weakened the Union. Critics disputed these claims. William Warburton attacked Bolingbroke as an evil-speaker with “dog-eloquence”—claimed his calls for party reform were an aristocratic conspiracy to cement the power of elites. An anonymous critic argued that the government is a union of unrelated people where laws supplant the natural bonds between families. Then, the government of the United States would not exist, or would not exist long.

Keep ReadingShow less