Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your Take: Congressional incivility

Your Take: Congressional incivility
Getty Images

Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Bridge Alliance, Coffee Party and Fulcrum communities regarding recent patterns of incivility displayed by some of our elected officials:

  • As a voter, does civility count as much as political ideology?
  • How can we hold our elected officials responsible for upholding democratic principles?

Since our last email, the controversy surrounding George Santos has become a Jeopardy clue, as Congress awaits the proverbial shoe to drop on the fate of the embattled congressman. And while his resignation or removal seem increasingly inevitable with each passing day, Representative Santos’ potential departure from the House is unlikely to solve Congress’ incivility problem. Our democracy’s hub of lawmaking has become an elementary school sandbox; with some of our elected officials frolicking about in spectacle, lacking regard for the particular needs of their constituents.


As many of you acknowledged in your responses, while this incivility is the most apparent, it is not the most prevalent approach. Fairness and reason are much quieter means of doing business. Hence, we are often baited into centralizing our perspective around the much more eye-catching sensationalism. Therefore, it is just as much our responsibility as our elected officials to engage in democracy responsibly. With few equivocations, “we the people” elect those who represent us. Subsequently, their representation of us is particularly aligned with what we promote as acceptable in our role as the voters who support them.

Here is a sampling of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity:

Civility is much more important than political ideology and, at the very least, they need to work together. Right now this is not happening. Only with civility can we trust, resolve, have constructive dialogue, and make better solutions. The question of how we can hold our elected officials responsible is a hard one. First of all, not all of our elected officials are happy with the incivility. And, we the people are their followers, but only a vocal subset of our population has joined in with the arguing, the hate, and distrust. Until we direct the blame where it belongs, we cannot effect change. - Brenda Marinace

It would be nice if the voters held elected officials accountable, but the average voter is just as guilty as the politicians in their incivility to those who hold alternate opinions to their own - Jack Closson

On a school camping trip with my government and history teacher, we had a lengthy conversation about the inability of a loud minority to acknowledge when their perceived opponent has a valid point. This division often devolves into incivility. Therefore, if an individual needs to compromise on the strength of their political ideology to maintain a civil discourse, then that is a tradeoff worth making. Uncivil discourse is not a crime, so impeachment and removal from office should not be used as a political weapon against the elected officials behaving in an uncivilized manner. But what we can do, is to simply not re-elect them. - Bobby Hamblin

Civility always matters. If your ideology includes the concept of pragmatism in pursuit of the U.S.’s best interests, treating others with civility will prove to be a helpful asset. - Bernard Sucher

In order to hold our elected officials accountable, Party leadership needs to stop tolerating this kind of behavior (i.e. censure members, remove them from committees, etc.). This will help stop this behavior from being effective. - Eric Prostko

Elected officials are a mirror of the people who elected them. We need to look within and elect people with higher principles. - Doug Bicknell

Rank choice voting would produce candidates with a broader, reducing the advancement of strident, divisive candidates from taking office. - Isaiah Jefferson

Civility is important, but not just for elected officials. It’s important for all of us. - Art Caya

Civility counts nearly as much as ideology. But what does count as much, if not more, is a sense of fairness and willingness to abide by set rules and laws. It is wrong for elected officials to use the law to suit whatever agenda is of the moment and then turn their back on it when it no longer serves them. - Nancy Smith

As a partisan voter who was convinced that my party's way was the right way for America, I was comfortable with being a “warrior” in the battle of ideologies, thinking if we became a governing, sustainable majority, that the country would see our effectiveness and embrace our view. I no longer hold this view. The collateral damage to the very fabric holding the country together has been so severe that we no longer trust our leaders or institutions - or even our neighbors if they do not share our world view. It seems as a nation that we cannot collectively solve problems, big or small, barely even managing the government at the moment. I now believe we must pivot to civility first before ideology. While I believe my ideology is still the best way for America, I am now content if my ideology does not carry the day. We cannot function properly with so much dysfunction! - Dan Brady

When political ideology takes precedent over the democratic process of honest information, open discussion, negotiation and compromise, our democracy ends - Stephen Herbits

"Ideological rage" is just as bad as road rage. Driving is frustrating and challenging. Yet we recognize that name-calling, aggressive, and unethical behavior on the roads is not helpful. Likewise, politics is frustrating and challenging. But, aggression and incivility will only cause more conflict. As consumers, would we allow the CEOs of car companies to yell at each other, or skirt responsibility when wrong-doing is uncovered? We elect politicians to work with each other to solve problems (including being civil and cooperative), not to incite, inflame, and cause political gridlock. - Marc Wong

To a greater extent, ideology in civil discourse can hash out differences and allow us to come to a mutually beneficial, yet imperfect, agreement. But incivility will not even allow us to come to the table to discuss the real problems. It distracts and takes our eye off the real problems and the real solutions. - Rick Davis

The value of civility depends on how we define it. As a workplace bullying advocate and researcher, incivility is defined as the minor infractions of rude discourse. I would certainly prefer that members of Congress conduct themselves in a polite and civil manner, but once the “rudeness floodgates” are opened, it can become difficult for civil tones of voices to be heard over the noise. There are instances where the ethical course of action is to call out vile behavior in the most civil manner that is available under the circumstances. - Leigh Patricia Schmitt, PhD.

Civility is an example of political ideology. - Mikel Clifford

We have the behavior and the outcomes we have from elected officials because of the way they are elected. They would not engage in those behaviors if our election system did not reward them for doing so. If we want different behaviors and outcomes from elected officials, then we have to change the way they are elected, including ranked choice voting. - Larry R. Bradley

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less