Steve Trotter

I blame Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He began something that made our representative government change. The change wasn’t an improvement.

Before Gingrich there was something called “civility” among Representatives and Senators. Members of Congress might disagree, and disagree they did, loudly, vociferously, strongly — but they remained civil toward one another.

There are of course exceptions throughout our history, times when things went sideways between Representatives and Senators. But on the whole, most of the time, respect and listening, civil words and civil actions, were the rule.

Until Gingrich, disagreements on the floor of the House were focused on the issue being considered. Taxes? Argue about the sources of the money, how it will be spent, the fairness to that group of citizens versus this group. The focus was on the topic.

Gingrich shifted the focus to the person. He started the long downhill journey we now see every day, across our political culture and pressing out into other settings as well.

Gingrich started a form of “argument” called, in Latin, “argument ad hominem.” Literally, “argument to the person.” Rather than argue the points or the evidence or the logic, Gingrich attacked the person whose views he opposed.

He wasn’t the first in Congress to do this. The practice goes back millennia. But Gingrich made it normative for many. It became the way things are done. And what he started has continued and, as hard as it is to believe, gotten worse.

We no longer hear of a Republican member of congress. It’s now a fascist Republican or a greedy Republican. Democrats now come with the label “communist” or “socialist.” Rarely are such terms used in a neutral way — the very label is loaded with invective and insult and to our ears it means that person must be dismissed, without giving a second to consider what that Republican or Democrat might be saying or thinking.

I lived for a couple of years in a former Soviet country. I was there a decade after the Soviets left. The effects of communism were still evident, still experienced, still present. I have a small understanding of the word “communist.” The politicians who throw that label at their political enemies don’t know what they are saying.

Same with “fascism.” The word is used by people who have little or no understanding of what the word means.

Are there folks in America who embrace communism or fascism as a philosophy or world view or their guide to living? Yes, of course. I’m guessing the number is small. I have no evidence to support my guess.

The labels get applied because an argument against the person is a good distraction from an argument about the issues. It’s easier to insult than to debate.

Discussion will reveal the weaknesses in my argument. Discussion might lead a group to compromise, which Gingrich considered a failure of the first rank.

The result is what we see now and have seen for a quarter-century. Lots of arguments directed at the person, rather than about the issue. Recent history shows civility even further diminished, to the point that one side won’t consider discussing anything with the other side. So nothing gets decided. Our nation and many of our relationships stagnate, grow bitter, fall apart.

We can move from where we are, but it will require women and men of clear thought and good motive to lead us there. I think Gingrich was more interested in power than governance. We’re caught in the crossfire of women and men seeking power and control, who lean into authoritarian leadership. We’re stuck as a nation.

I blame Newt Gingrich.