Book Review: A Question of Respect
Friend and GOP pollster Ed Goeas teams up with Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on restoring political discourse. It is valuable and important - even where I disagree. Five stars.
The phone call came out of the blue on a crisp Fall day in 1974. I was a freshman (oops, “first-year student”) at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, a small public liberal arts school.
He got right to the point. “I’m Ed Goeas, and I want you to join OIL,” he said. I remember my smart-alecky response: “Who are you, and what is OIL?”
I chose USAO over another state school because it had no student government, and I had support from the college president who recruited me to start one. The school was recovering from the challenges of firing 14 professors, resulting in a 22-percent drop in enrollment over anti-Vietnam war agitation in Chickasha, a small conservative town. The school was seeking to reemerge, phoenix-like, from the ashes, under threats that it could convert into a prison.
I saw an opportunity that would never avail itself elsewhere. I wrote a constitution, recruited students, conducted elections, and became Student Senate president. I would later serve as editor of the student newspaper. We recreated the Student Association, and I won the election as President. I also lost my reelection campaign, so there’s that. That was an education I would never get in any classroom.
Thus the call from Ed, then a student at nearby Cameron University in Lawton. OIL - the Oklahoma Intercollegiate Legislature - was a collection of college students from around the Sooner state who gathered at the Oklahoma State Legislature to learn state government by acting like legislators. Ed, who was running for governor of OIL, was recruiting student activists from small state schools to join and overcome the domination of OIL by the state’s two largest universities, OU and OSU. His strategy worked. We joined. He won, and I served as a state Senator. It was a lot of fun, and I made many friends, one of whom would later become the President of the Oklahoma State Senate, Stratton Taylor (D-Claremore).
But Ed proved more than a close friend; he became a mentor. He recruited me to work on Capitol Hill for a freshman House member in 1981 and later as a regional field director helping incumbents win reelection for the National Republican Congressional Committee. He served as a groomsman at my wedding in 1984. More than 30 years ago, he and partners Dave Sackett and Brian Tringali took over the Tarrance Group, one of the largest and most successful Republican polling firms in the country. He recently stepped down as CEO after an illustrious career. Except now, at age 70, he’s earned a new title: Author.
When I met Ed, we were both Democrats. He supported George McGovern for President in 1972; I would later volunteer for Fred Harris’s presidential campaign in 1976. He became a Republican a couple of years before I did. We both supported Ronald Reagan. Also, interestingly, co-author Celinda Lake began her political engagement as a Republican. Somehow, our respective conversions gave us a degree of understanding, if not empathy, for the Other Team.
During his early years at Tarrance, Ed befriended Democratic pollster and Montana native Lake to conduct a bipartisan poll known as the “Battleground Poll.” It has long been one of my favorites. I especially enjoyed reading Celinda’s and Ed’s separate survey analyses. As you might imagine, they didn’t always agree, but they were insightful. Despite their political differences, their work together forged a deep friendship. While such bipartisan friendship among political warriors is not uncommon, because of the visibility of the Battleground Poll, theirs is among the best known, behind the marriage of 1992 Clinton campaign manager James Carville and former RNC chief of staff and counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, Mary Matalin (who is now a registered Libertarian).
As they explain in their superb book, “A Question of Respect,” released this week, they developed a second component of their Battleground Poll: The Civility Poll.
In our latest polls, we have uncovered evidence of a widening gap in the American population that potentially threatens the very foundations of our democracy. We have discovered that almost every group of Americans feels victimized somehow. Some strongly believe in the power of a free market and resent government intervention and restrictions in every facet of their daily lives. Others believe in far more government involvement to give everyone a fair chance and protect them against special interests and the privileged few.
The noise level has risen from both arenas, and we are rapidly losing the ability to even hear each other. With too few of us listening, and in-person interactions dramatically diminished, polarization will continue to escalate, with dissension center stage in the media, in our city and country streets and public gathering places, and even at our family dining tables.
This is not a book about civility. This book is about the rediscovery of respect in our political discourse, thus the title.
That which is rewarded gets repeated
The book is divided into two parts. The first one defines the problem and dives into the causes of deepening polarization and how “bad behavior” is rewarded. And as the old saying goes, that which is rewarded gets repeated. Chapter four cites examples of four Members of Congress, two from each major party whose polarizing rhetoric has been rewarded with media attention and even sizeable financial support. They include Republicans Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Democrats Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Maxine Waters (D-CA). Grayson is no longer serving in Congress. Greene has at least recanted some of her most vitriolic statements.
Ed’s and Celinda’s work resonated with me in Part II with their respective problem-solving strategies and solutions. One such focus is on “Big Tech” reforms, including a new framework to replace Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. While much of that law has been struck down, Section 230 remains in force: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” They argue for more government regulation:
What is needed is a systems-based approach that moves beyond the current “whack-a-mole” approach of flagging individual harmful posts or illegal activity. Shining a light on the mechanisms used by social media platforms that harass, intimidate, and discriminate will guide us forward as we design strategies to mitigate the amplification of online extremism, abuse, and hate speech.
This is not inconsistent with proposals emanating from Big Tech itself (Facebook in particular). While I would rather see more rigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws and finding ways to allow the marketplace to work, they highlight a crucial issue - the need to clean up social media.
While I don’t subscribe to Ed’s characterizations of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity (or Donald Trump, for that matter), I fully share his and Celinda’s views on the lack of journalistic rigor, especially online media (legacy media has followed suit, sadly). Reliance on “clickbait” - sensationalized headlines and content often based on dubious single anonymous sources - contributes to polarization and worse.
Where Ed and I are in complete agreement is on campaign finance reform. He outlines the harm done to modern political campaigns through independently funded “Super PACs” that divert resources away - and generate messages separate from - political parties and candidates. We agree on incentives that steer campaign contributions with transparency so candidates and parties have more control over campaign messages. I cannot recommend Chapter eight strongly enough. Most of these Super PAC-funded ads are highly negative.
Ed and Celinda also take on the politicization of the Covid pandemic, which - pun intended - ripped the mask off our festering polarization.
Instead of holding a unified idea on how to approach this public health issue, Democrats and Republicans splintered among ideo- logical lines. Many Democrats championed social distancing and mask-wearing with almost religious zeal. Many of those on the right side of the aisle framed the issue in terms of “government tyranny.” To them, masks were muzzles to keep you in line rather than a tool that might help save lives. Sacrificing some aspects of behavior for our fellow Americans has morphed into a bizarre political game. Public servants who should have been working to protect their citizens and save their economic livelihoods focused on scoring political points with their base.
The politicization of Covid may be the most significant tragedy of the 21st Century thus far.
The book was written before the 2022 midterm elections. But Ed and Celinda seem to have channeled independent voters, who comprised 31 percent of the electorate and largely rejected the negative messages from both major parties that focused on their bases. Unlike in recent midterm elections, the independent vote split nearly down the middle. The candidates who won - especially governors - focused chiefly on positive messages that addressed voters’ real concerns. That is a key theme in the book.
There are a couple of other areas I wish the book had discussed. First, the rise of “cancel culture,” which seeks to silence and destroy disfavored (primarily conservative) speech. We’re seeing it play out with disreputable “journalists” like the Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz, their technology “reporter” who has no problem doxxing individuals while playing victim to “online harassment” and demanding Twitter be removed from Apple’s and Google’s app stores. Left-wing groups use social media and other tools to silence and destroy careers and reputations for political gain. And now some right-leaning activists are fighting fire with fire, a form of mutually assured destruction. This won’t end well.
Second, there are examples of outstanding work underway by several organizations that have emerged over the past decade (or more) that have modeled respectful dialogue and found creative solutions to thorny problems. Three examples: The Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, the Stubblefield Institute for Civil Political Communication at West Virginia’s Shepherd University, and Braver Angels, a terrific and fast-growing national grassroots organization. Highlighting their novel approaches provides pathways for readers to engage in this vital work. I was a founding board member of the Convergence Center, a current founding board member of the Stubblefield Institute, and a member of and participant in Braver Angels programs. There are many more.
Also, the lines between civil and uncivil discourse can be hard to discern. The ability to disagree without being disagreeable is challenging for all who passionately express or hold views on contentious issues. Those of us who are strong Second Amendment proponents are held responsible for every mass shooting. People who support a “right” to abortion are called “baby killers.” On contentious issues like guns and abortion, perhaps the line being crossed is between persuasion and condemnation. Salespeople don’t condemn prospective customers when trying to persuade them to buy a widget. It’s more about how we discourse and dialogue. Maybe the key to rediscovering respect can be found in salesmanship.
The late US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is held up as a model by Ed and Celinda. But having been in a few closed-door meetings with Senators, I’ve seen McCain get very “close and personal” with colleagues. One example includes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which now-Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) strongly opposed. Their discussions could be . . . contentious. But it was never personal, and they worked well together on many other issues.
What does end well is the book, especially this penultimate paragraph.
We still have areas of disagreement. We always will. But we will always hear each other out. We will not be angry, insulting, or dismissive. We will bring our respect for each other to every interaction, every poll we do together, every piece of campaign advice we give our clients, and every mentorship we undertake. Fundamental to our relations is this commitment we share: we are both concerned citizens who want nothing more than to make life better for others. Hopefully, after reading this book, you will feel the same about those in your life and on your ballots.
My final view of the book is also found in its opening section on praise for the book from a variety of sources:
Many outside Washington’s beltway or west of the Hudson River may be tempted to see this as an “Acela Corridor” book. That’s wrong. Like Ed, I’m a former political warrior turned champion for civil discourse and have gone from being part of the problem to, hopefully, being part of the solution. Partisans and tribalists today are more interested in exploiting issues for political, even personal gain, not resolving them. Ed and Celinda expertly model and outline how trust must be built, resulting in respect, and in the process rediscovering pathways to meaningful bipartisan communication and cooperation without sacrificing core principles and values.
You can find the 200-page book here. Five stars.