Here’s an interesting review of whether Congressional discourse has become less civil over the past few years – and the answer is no. The most recent study by the Annenberg Center at Penn shows that the 2001 Congress was one of the most civil in years. Historically, the record seems to be varied, with incivility (and accusations of lying) peaking when the House changes sides. Since the Congress has been far more evenly divided in recent years than in the past, it might even be argued that the representatives are actually extremely civil these days. There are some nuances:
A qualitative analysis of uses of “liar” suggests that in the 1940s and 50s, Members were more likely to accuse a foreign enemy of lying and are now more likely to address such charges against the president, a presidential candidate, an opposing party, or each other. A content analysis confirms that discussions of lying have more frequently referred to or been directed at other Members in more recent times. An analysis of uses of vulgarity suggests that the l04th was less likely to include coarse language than most of the Congresses of the past decade. A comparison of the level of vulgarity in the House and the British House of Commons suggests that the level in the U.S. is somewhat higher.
The latter surprises me. I guess all that braying and “hear-hears” don’t count as rude. Of course, it might also be true that the boring, civil nature of so much Congressional debate means that the real tussle takes place on cable television and in insta-books, like Coulter’s and Franken’s. They deserve each other.
The Dish 