Dignity in Congressional Races

 

Panelist Comments Support a Dignity Strategy

UNITE, the non-profit founded by Tim Shriver to ease the country’s political divisions, today released its Dignity Index scores on candidates for the US House and Senate.

“The scores this week show that panelists recognize the presence of dignity or contempt whether they agree with the speaker or not,” said Shriver, a co-creator of the Index. “And the comments support the view that a “dignity strategy” – searching for common interests and values, for example – can be much more appealing to voters than a contempt strategy, which demonizes opponents to energize supporters.”

In one passage, Republican Senate candidate Larry Hogan said of his opponent: “I like and respect Angela Alsobrooks. We got a chance to work together while I was Governor, we accomplished a great deal together… and she's got a great life story.”

This prompted a panelist on the right to say, “I am ranking this as a six because he is speaking so highly of his opponent at a time when he would be expected to call her an evil witch instead. It does take some political courage to speak highly of the person you are running against.” This passage also prompted a panelist on the left to say, “I wish more candidates did this. I would do it myself if I ran for public office.”

In another passage, Republican House candidate Lauren Boebert opened a rally by saying: "I was gonna kick things off with a joke. But then I realized, why bother? Because, Kamala Harris has already beat me to it by running in this race."

This prompted a panelist on the left to say,“Where are all the adults when stuff like this is being said? I wish there were more people still around like John McCain. I might not [have] agreed with his politics, but as a man he was respectful and respectable.”  

“The panelists are sending an important message,” said Tom Rosshirt, co-creator of the Index. “The skills that can help you govern can also help you get elected. And that’s how it should be.”

 

THE LATEST SCORES

Panelists score by matching language from the speech passage with descriptions in the Dignity Index scoring guide, which is available here. 

 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
It's why I stepped up for Congress six years ago, as a Democrat that won a district Trump won twice, to show that we can build a politics that brings us together rather than divides us.
Andy Kim
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, in a political debate.
6 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
We don’t let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on.
Subtext goes here
Finds it deeply satisfying to cooperate with the other side.
Subtext goes here
We talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share, and using them as a basis for cooperation.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
For some reason I believe a 6 it's a perfect fit for this passage. I always believe that working together help you achieved more things in life. and when the passage talks about how "we can build a politics that will bring us together" , I immediately think about other people involved. because together with more people we can achieve more.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
When people put their grievances aside. This is what you get. A compassionate politician.
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
He's definitely proud of his relationship with the voters.
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
55% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
5.71
• Left Avg: 5.76
• Middle Avg: 5.70
• Right Avg: 5.67
Agreement: Very Strong
95%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
On substance, I believe very firmly that if America can’t be a place to get into the middle class and beyond, we’ve got a problem. It’s existential. So, my sun and my moon is protecting and enriching that middle class, getting people into it, and letting people live a good life and their kids behind them.
Elissa Slotkin
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan in an interview.
5 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
I share my views with no contempt so they're easier for others to hear.
Subtext goes here
Speaks openly, explaining their views, but never with contempt.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
I feel this is a 5 because the speaker is talking clearly and directly to the point. I don't see any type of contempt or any sarcasm in the passage. I just see an individual telling us the audience the way she see things.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I scored this a five based on the open expression of views made by the candidate. She shows no disdain for the other side and leaves t door open door discussion about the content of her message.
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
67% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
5.16
• Left Avg: 5.20
• Middle Avg: 5.17
• Right Avg: 5.10
Agreement: Strong
87%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Our national security has to come first — and I’m willing to work with anyone to make it happen. I did it before, and I’ll do it again.
Mike Rogers
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter).
6 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
We talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share, and using them as a basis for cooperation.
Subtext goes here
We don’t let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on.
Subtext goes here
Believes they have a duty to talk to the other side, find common interests and values, and use them as a basis for cooperation.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
This is a good example of a six because he speaks of his willingness to work cooperatively with the other side on issues they find agreement on. He also references his history of doing that.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I think that he has good intentions behind this post but he is not trying to find common ground or even explore the possibility that he may be wrong.
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
61% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
5.93
• Left Avg: 6.16
• Middle Avg: 5.83
• Right Avg: 5.81
Agreement: Very Strong
99%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
For over a year, Ruben Gallego has been lying to the people of Arizona. Lying about his record, lying about his character, lying about his intentions. Yesterday we exposed him for the radical he is.
Kari Lake
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona, in a post on Instagram.
3 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
Makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.
Subtext goes here
Disdains the other side.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
In my opinion this is a 3. because I see this as a personal attack. When you are describing bad characteristics about an individual, it really affects how people see them moving forward. So I do see this as a personal attack.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I scored this a 3 for two reasons. The personal attack o the candidate and the lack of any specific facts to support the attack. Lake could have offered specifics and left the door open for discussion, but chose instead to attack the character of Gallego
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
70% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
3.16
• Left Avg: 2.96
• Middle Avg: 3.20
• Right Avg: 3.33
Agreement: Very Strong
96%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Kari Lake will do anything for power, even if it means lying to Arizonans. We can’t trust her.
Ruben Gallego
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona, in a post on Instagram.
3 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
Makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.
Subtext goes here
Disdains the other side.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
says they will lie to get power
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
these politicians are just attacking saying useless garbage not policies just rhetoric
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Again, doesn't offer any proof that the other side is lying
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
59% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
3.13
• Left Avg: 2.92
• Middle Avg: 3.07
• Right Avg: 3.48
Agreement: Very Strong
97%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I'm running to fix our broken care systems, to lower costs, and to fire Lauren Boebert because she doesn't care about your family. But I do. If she won't do her job, I will.
Trisha Calvarese
Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Colorado, in a post on Instagram.
3 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
Makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.
Subtext goes here
Disdains the other side.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
I am ranking this a three entirely off of the claim that her opponent does not care about her constituents. That is an unnecessary personal attack that weakens the rest of her statement, even though it is a common attack in politics. She could have simply stated that Boebert has not accomplished anything to solve the problems we face and that she will, and it would have been a four or five.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
What concerns me about this type of political statement is that candidates like Calvarese always make broad generalized statements about how the opponent doesn't "care" about her constituents, and just how is she going to "fix" some system but have no concrete evidence or ideas to back anything.
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I scored this a three based on the personal attack against Boebert and the lack of any facts to support the statement. Calavarese could have opened the door for discussion of various issues if she had put any facts in to support her statement. she chose not to engage on this issue and did a disservice to her area's electorate
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
49% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
3.43
• Left Avg: 3.44
• Middle Avg: 3.40
• Right Avg: 3.48
Agreement: Very Strong
92%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I was gonna kick things off with a joke. But then I realized, why bother? Because, Kamala Harris has already beat me to it by running in this race.
Lauren Boebert
Congresswoman and Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in Colorado, in a speech at a rally.
3 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
Makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.
Subtext goes here
Disdains the other side.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
Doesn't take the other side seriously. Looks at them as a joke. Talking about their competence.
A panelist in the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I was going to rate this quote a 4 as i assumed it was distorting their opponents position to make it sound unappealing but the implication is what makes it a 3 as the speaker then suggest their opponent entering the race is a joke in itself. This can be seen as a jab at the characters background and experience as the speaker may not deem them as a worry opposition or an easy win for them.
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I scored this a three based on the personal attack against VP Harris. I'm sure this was meant to get her attendees to laugh but this type of attack is all too common in today's politics and is a poor attemot at humor and serves no real purpose at a political rally.
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
53% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
3.47
• Left Avg: 3.44
• Middle Avg: 3.33
• Right Avg: 3.71
Agreement: Very Strong
95%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I just want to start by saying that I like and respect Angela Alsobrooks. We got a chance to work together while I was Governor, we accomplished a great deal together for Prince Georges County and she's got a great life story.
Larry Hogan
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland during a debate.
6 is the most frequently chosen score by members of the National Citizens Panel.
Why was this contempt dignity ?
"They're not even human. It's our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us."
"Those people are evil and they're going to ruin our country if we let them. It's us or them."
"We're the good people and they're the bad people. It's us vs. them."
"We're better than those people. They don't really belong. They're not one of us."
"The other side has a right to be here and a right to be heard. It's their country too."
"We always talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share."
"We fully engage with the other side, discussing even values and interests we don't share, open to admitting mistakes or changing our minds."
"Each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity–no matter what."
Top Reasons
Can see the good in the other side and will acknowledge their skills and accomplishments.
Subtext goes here
Finds it deeply satisfying to cooperate with the other side.
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Subtext goes here
Panelist Thoughts
This is definitely a 6 because just by reading this passage I can see a good relationship here with the other side. We can see how they work together and get along. and this is something I would love to see more often, but sometimes it's very hard because candidates think that just by fighting with each other they will get what they want, and it's the opposite. Seeing a positive passage and somebody referring to an individual in a respectful way, it is something to admire.
A panelist on the right , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
This is easily a 6 as the speaker refers to their opposition and when doing so discusses the good they had when they both worked on a project with one another. The speaker doesn’t say anything malicious but instead sincere throughout her whole speech.
A panelist in the middle , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
I wish more candidates did this. I would do it myself if I ran for public office.
A panelist on the left , Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
, Score: 1, Score: 2, Score: 3, Score: 4, Score: 5, Score: 6, Score: 7, Score: 8
Score Analysis
61% of all panelists
Contempt
Dignity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Score
6.33
• Left Avg: 6.32
• Middle Avg: 6.50
• Right Avg: 6.10
Agreement: Very Strong
100%
of panelists
agree this is
CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITYDIGNITY

All of the National Citizen Panelist quotes have been attributed verbatim to retain the authenticity of the language.

Press Contact: press@unite.us

 
Kate Larsennational citizens panel