Second Congressional District Debate Scores Released

Dignity Index releases Second Congressional District debate ratings

SALT LAKE CITY (October 18, 2022) — The Dignity Index has released scores for select passages from last night’s Senate debate and last Friday’s Second Congressional District debate.

Applying the principles of the Dignity Index, coders selected the high- and low-dignity segments to represent the widest range of dignity during the debate. This selection provides insight into the range of language often expressed in political dialogue. As a result, the scores of these passages may not conform to an individual’s perception of the entire debate.

As with the other debates, examples of both contempt and dignity for both candidates were evident, showing individuals are capable of both. However, in this debate there were more examples of contempt, and fewer examples of dignity.

Preface

In a country as polarized as ours is now, it’s natural for people to be suspicious that The Dignity Index is a secret scheme to gain partisan advantage. It’s not. The Index is not on the side of any debater; it’s on the side of the debate – and on the side of democracy.

As we set out to design a dignity scale, we did not anticipate what happened. We found that the dignity scale measures not only how we treat each other when we disagree; it also measures how well we ease divisions and solve problems.

As an example, if I’m speaking at level THREE, I’m basically saying that I belong to the good people and you belong to the bad people. This attitude takes away our ability to talk to each other, and leaves us little chance of solving problems. In fact, the problems will get worse because we can’t talk about them.

If I’m speaking at level FOUR, things are slightly better. I’m not saying you’re necessarily a bad person trying to do bad things. I just think you’re either reckless or immature or irresponsible. Or you’re just not “one of us,” and I don’t really trust you. And we still can’t talk to each other.

If I’m speaking at level FIVE, I stop the contempt. No more negative labeling or name-calling. I say what I think and what I believe. I put forward my arguments. I listen to yours. I might even make a proposal for making things better. This is where problem-solving can start.

If I’m speaking at level SIX, I’m curious about the other side. I take the chance of reaching out. I’m convinced we must have some common interests and values and I start talking to you in the hope of finding them, so we can use them as a basis for cooperation. I get a sense of pride from accomplishing something with the other side.

If I’m speaking at a level SEVEN, I’m curious not only about what we might agree on; I’m curious even about what we disagree on. I want to talk with the other side, even if I’m going to be told I’m wrong. I don’t mind that. I’m willing even to admit some past mistakes and change my mind – because I think it’s silly to think my group is always right and the other group is always wrong. I think talking to people I disagree with is sometimes where the blind spots vanish and the breakthroughs come.

We saw this pattern emerge as we scored lots of debates and speeches, and that’s when we realized that treating others with dignity and easing divisions and solving problems are the same sets of skills. And the Index was more valuable than we thought.

It can’t tell us what the right policy is, or what the right approach is. It just encourages us to take dignity and contempt into account when we make decisions, take actions, and speak our minds.

Scores

Cassie Easley (Constitution Party)

I really have a problem trusting the government to follow the Constitution the way that it was written. And they go in and they make all kinds of laws that are not even within their scope of what they're supposed to be allowed to do. So, they're taking the authority to do things that they were not given. So that's something they need to stop doing.

Score: 4 The passage reads, “I really have a problem trusting the government to follow the Constitution.” This corresponds with the FOUR description, “attacks the other side’s performance…we shouldn’t trust them.” This is a vague attack that expresses contempt and doesn’t offer any specifics. To challenge (not “attack”) the government -- and still treat the other side with dignity (and score a FIVE), the speaker could point to a specific action taken by a particular individual or agency, explain how it went beyond their authority, and then offer a proposal for addressing the overreach. Without a specific example of the problem or a proposal to fix it, the speaker will just generate contempt.

I agree that the Colorado Compact is good for Utah because it does give us a lot of water that we need. I do know that the federal government is responsible for the BLM lands that we have. And there, especially in the southern Utah area, I've talked to a lot of people that I know that farm and say that there's a problem with the watersheds, that the federal government's not keeping them up to par. So that does affect our water and how we can get it out, especially in a lot of the alfalfa fields down here.

Score: 5 – This passage explains “a goal, a view or a plan” -- and does so without any contempt for the other side. The speaker names a policy area that needs attention, but the statement would be a more powerful problem-solving statement if the speaker offered more facts, detailing the problems with the watersheds and suggesting how they might be fixed. Offering a proposal is a mark of a dignity-based discussion.

When it comes to abortion, I am against it but I am for women being able to make choices. You should choose not to have sex, because it does cause pregnancy, if you do not want to get pregnant--or use protection. And the choices need to come before there's another life involved. And I think that the states--and if it is put on a ballot initiative, I think that would be a great thing for the people to actually be able to say what they really want. My personal belief is that it's wrong.

Score: 5 The speaker is declaring her position on abortion without expressing any contempt for people who don’t share her view – and she’s making a proposal for a ballot initiative that would allow everyone to be heard – a strong feature of FIVE on the Index.

Chris Stewart (Republican)

For context: The moderator Boyd Matheson has asked each candidate, “What is one thing that government should stop doing and one thing government should start doing to regain the trust of the American people?”

So then, what would I have the government do? The one thing I'd ask them to do: be honest with us. We can take it. We're strong enough. Tell us the truth and tell us the solutions of how we can fix some of these problems. Again, give us the truth. We will accept the truth. And I've found that almost every American will work towards a solution if you're just honest with them in the beginning.

Score: 6 In assessing a statement for how the speaker treats ‘the other side,’ it is important to identify who “the other side” is. In this statement, the government could “the other side.” But we have scored this passage considering that “the other side” are the people on either side of the political divide in this country. In that frame, the speaker is making a clear and direct statement that all of us together will work towards a solution if we know what the truth is. We’ll all come together to solve these problems as long as we know what they are. We score that a SIX – reflecting a mindset where people see it as “a welcome duty to work with the other side to find common ground and act on it.”

And some of the things that Nick has said I agree with. But Nick, I disagree; we do need to be able to mine on federal lands. You're right, probably not Bears Ears. Probably not the national monuments. But there's other federal lands of the BLM that I think would be open to us. But we've got to do one or the other.

Score: 6 The speaker says, “Some of the things that Nick has said I agree with.” That grounds the conversation in some common values and interests. Then the speaker takes the problem-solving discussion further by using that agreement as a point of departure, and then begin to discuss differences, but in a persuasive, not a confrontational way (“you’re right, probably not Bears Ears”. Having established an area of agreement, he keeps touching on the areas of agreement even as he broaches disagreement. There is a “Let’s keep talking” tone to this passage. Very skillful. Very SIX.

What we are seeing on the southern border is a catastrophe. It's a crisis, and what's unforgiveable about it, it is the one that was deliberately created by this president, by this administration and his Democratic leaders in Congress. Why in the world does it make any sense to open up our southern border, to essentially say, "Come on in, and not only will we allow you to come in, but we're going to protect you, and we're going to finance you, and we're going to take care of you once you're here." Of course people are going to cross the border, millions of them.

And the human price of this is fentanyl. It's other drugs, and it's human trafficking that is a tragedy for young women and for girls. And once again, it was something that was created by this president. It's nearly unforgivable that he would do that.

Score: 3 In the first few lines, the speaker describes the situation on the border with the words “catastrophe” “crisis” “unforgivable” and “deliberately created.” The message is that the President, his administration and “his Democratic leaders in Congress” are bad people intentionally doing bad things that are hurting us. This aligns with THREE on the Index, “We’re the good people and they’re the bad people,” “We’re responsible for all the good things and they’re responsible for all the bad things.”

To challenge the President, his Administration and the Democrats in Congress on the border situation – and to do it with dignity (which means to create opportunities for problem-solving) – the speaker could explain the current situation on the border, describe the Biden policy, link the bad effects to the Biden policy, describe a new policy that would fix the problems, and then describe the work he has been doing to get people in his own party and across the aisle to support this new policy. That would be a SIX approach to criticizing the President’s border policy. A THREE approach simply stirs up contempt -- sympathetic listeners will have contempt for the President, and non-sympathetic listeners will have contempt for the speaker.

Nick Mitchell (Democrat)

(addressing Congressman Stewart): So, if it wouldn't have changed the election, why vote to not certify it? [CROSSTALK] I'm not done talking. If you knew it wouldn't have done anything, there was no point to not certify. It doesn't matter if you thought that there was irregularities or not, which we know that there was not. You were just told to do this by your Republican leaders. That's the only reason why you do things, and it's not okay.

Score: 3 This is a moral character attack. The speaker is saying that Congressman Stewart has given away his moral agency to another group, and does what he is told to do without regard to his own views. “That’s the only reason you do things,” puts this clearly in category THREE. If the speaker wants to challenge Congressman Stewart on his vote on January 6, and do it with dignity, he would focus on the decision to make the vote, the arguments for and against the vote, and the effects of the vote – but to attack the Congressman on his motives, declaring that “you were just told to do this” is a moral attack and an act of contempt.

When it comes to the Colorado River Compact, I think that it's a good start, and I think it does need to be updated. But more than that, I think when you have a shift in our cultural mindset, we are in this together, the entire Southwest. If the Colorado runs dry, Utah will become unlivable; Nevada will become unlivable; Arizona; New Mexico. We need to come together and work it out. We need to start using less. We do need to conserve. We do need to have brown grass. Representative Ward of the Utah Legislature actually proposed a bill to make it so HOAs couldn't fine for having brown grass. But it didn't get passed. That bill should have been passed.

Score: 6 The speaker makes a very clear declaration of his position, which is a FIVE, but then he goes beyond that by saying “we need to come together and work it out,” which makes it a SIX. The Colorado River Compact “is a good start,” and “I think it does need to be updated.” He identified common values and interests, and uses it as the basis for cooperation.

When it comes to the refugee crisis, it's something that we need to have compassion for. These refugees didn't want to leave their home, but they were forced to. And so, I think that we need, once again, to have a serious conversation about compassion and where that falls in politics because that is missing in Washington and we need it back, just that understanding nature of people being afraid, not wanting to leave their homes but they're forced to. We need to have compassion back.

Score: 7 To score a passage, we need to have an understanding of who is “the other side” – even if it’s only implicit. This passage could be scored as if Washington is the other side, where compassion is missing. In that case it would be a FOUR. But if you consider the refugees as “the other side,” this is a SEVEN. SEVEN is about fully engaging others, being curious about the deepest differences and disagreements, and, in particular, trying to understand how people on “the other side,” have come to their views, what they have gone through, how they came to believe what they believe. When the speaker says we need to understand people “being afraid, not wanting to leave their homes but they’re forced to,” he’s stepped inside the mind and experience of someone “on the other side,” trying to learn what they’ve been through in a way that helps bring the two sides together.

About The Dignity Index project

The Dignity Index is an eight-point scale that measures what we do when we disagree. The scale ranges from one -- which sees no dignity at all in the other side -- to eight, which sees dignity in everyone. Each point on the scale reflects a particular mindset, and each mindset is associated with certain beliefs and behaviors that reflect how open we are to the other side. As a broad rule, if I treat you with dignity, it means that I can see myself in you; if I treat you with contempt, it means I see myself above you.

Dignity in public debate involves making proposals, declaring values, stating goals and discussing decisions, actions, and outcomes. It includes listening carefully, and asking for more information. It means debating why something worked or didn’t work, whether it will work or why it won’t.

Contempt in public debate relies on mocking others, calling them names, attacking their motives and character, ridiculing their background or beliefs, and lumping them together in large groups under negative labels, declaring them dangerous, and blaming them for bad outcomes.

When we treat the other side with dignity, we make it easier to solve problems. When we treat others with contempt, we make it impossible to solve problems – because contempt takes away our ability to talk to each other.

Powered by UNITE, a national movement to encourage Americans to reject "us vs. them" thinking and stand together in common purpose, The Dignity Index was developed in partnership with behavioral scientists and other experts, and the demonstration project is being guided by researchers at the University of Utah. Learn more at dignityindex.us.

Andy OgdenOctober 18, 2022