* civility n. 1. politeness 2. a civil or polite act

— Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1995

NASHVILLE — Preceding the second presidential debate last week, a smaller, less consequential but important discussion occurred.

In the Troutt Theater on the Belmont University campus, two journalists and two politicians shared the stage and the microphones to examine whether politics and public policy can be conducted without rancor and discord.

The conclusion: outcome desired, but path to achieve yet to be determined.

Forum participants went into the “WABAC” machine that used to be part of a television cartoon involving Mr. Peabody and Sherman. The dial on the cartoon time machine would be set, and away they would be whisked into history.

The WABAC machine at the civility forum reminded participants of a time when “Democrats and Republicans were polite as they conducted the public’s business.”

There were phrases inserted in the discussion that today “winning is everything” and that some, who engage in the hand-to-hand combat in Washington, even believe that politics is supposed to be a “milk-toast” endeavor.

A former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Pat Schroeder of Colorado, recounted from years past the “fundamental respect” for colleagues, with few burnt bridges left because “you might need someone’s help tomorrow” who was not with you today.

What changed?

The word “reapportionment” came from the lips of the Republican and Democratic participants on the panel. Congress decided to carve up House districts so that displacing an incumbent with a challenge outside of the Democratic or Republican primary was nearly impossible.

Fewer members of Congress remain who are caught in the middle of the political divide or who are not pulled solely by one political extreme or the other. There are fewer contested races. Congress apportioned itself into protective political enclaves, building bunkers around re-election.

Gov. Phil Bredesen is ready to hit the pause button, to measure the tone of campaigns and to steady the erosion of honest dialogue.

Groping for a decent respect of differing points of view is the lofty goal from these civility crusaders, but that requires a willingness to hear other points of view.

As a result of the rancor in today’s political conversation, serious questions are avoided when doing the people’s business, and too many votes are cast for short-term political interests and putting political points on the board instead of investments in the future of the nation.

No easy, simple answers emerged from the one-day civility conversation, but tough issues do not lend themselves to simplicity. A sense of resignation did not overshadow the willingness to keep trying for changes in the political dialogue.

Some would argue that discord, disharmony and disrespect are virtues in today’s combative political wars. John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of The Tennessean, said there is nothing in the 45 words that make up the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that mentions civility. But he believes “robust and lusty” conversation between partisans in the Congress can be “civil.”

Possibly, but the civility conversation will remain on hold until the November elections pass. Then there will be a few days, before members of Congress start running for re-election, to squeeze out a discussion between honest people who have honest disagreements.

To reach Tom Griscom, call (423) 757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.

Comments