I, along with a small group of Vermont reporters, participated in a press conference with Welch this morning. Here are some selected notes & quotes, which may include typos:
Welch started in Congress in the same year as Giffords, and they’re fairly close. Welch is talking about what a great listener she is and how passionate her work is: “in these times when things are so controversial and heated she was always gentle but direct, clear and warm in what she conveyed when she was taking a very clear view… showing enormous respect for whomever it was she was speaking with.”
“This is an absolute catastrophe for the people who knew Gabby… really for all of us.”
“You fight hard for your point of view, but there’s no final legislative victories. All of us should have some humility… What I’ve seen in Vermont is that Vermonters know that civility really matters. It’s creating a culture of mutual respect. You can contest highly contested ideas. The challenges that face any state or country are serious… issues motivate people and get them extremely animated… they care about it.
There’s different points of view on every issue. The only way you can make progress is… you do it always with the restraint that the person with the other point of view is motivated with the same high ideals.”
Now talking about the respect shown in his race with Rainville in 2006. “At the end of the day, Vermonters who didn’t vote for me felt it was a fair race.”
“Civility is not about manners– it’s about creating a culture where the people can effectively correct problems.”
“The Vermont approach, where civility is the foundation of our politics is the foundation of America.”
Now reporters are asking questions so I’ll follow up in the comments.
Welch talks about the animation and sharp disagreement he’s found, but has never felt as though anyone’s crossed a line. “The essence of the job… is to listen to your constituents.”
“My personal experience is very very positive. I’m not the security expert but on a personal level… one of the best experiences… never anything… has been a problem.”
Kinsell: “you mentioned the tone of the debate… war of words… trying to attribute blame… do you think that the left and the right are to blame?”
Welch: “You can come up with examples on both sides… if we try to get on the assignment of blame I don’t know that we’ll make much progress…. each of us to take responsibility for our own tone of voice… all of us have responsibility to treat others with mutual respect.”
Question about Laughlin– “is it too easy to obtain a gun?”
Welch says its up to each state to make the decision.
Follow up on taking care of the mentally ill:
Welch: “yes, there’s enormous pressure on our budget to cut back on our services… you’ve got to do everything you can to try to help folks who have mental illness. I don’t know anything about this individual other than that it’s very very clear that this was an extremely deranged person.”
Reporter: “What about those known to be mentally ill?”
“If a person is known to be a danger to himself or others… the law can take that person into custody.”
“Are there any laws we should change about people who are dangerous?”
Welch: it’s a difficult call, but courts can take action. It’s a case by case basis and an enormous challenge in a free society.
Question re: rhetoric: “Would you support a general boycott?” (re hate speech and hate radio)
Welch: Politicians will conform their behavior to what voters reward. If voters reject over the top speech, you will see that reflected in how polticians behave. Re Palin’s bullseyes “that’s inappropriate.”
“There’s an immense amount of over-the-top rhetoric…. ‘bullets not ballots…’ harmful to… civility in a Democratic society…. it’s the absence of an argument…. becomes the escape for a lazy mind…. all of us have mutual responsibility… between elected officials and the people who elect us.”
So just a note of reflection on this, and I’ll leave it for comments:
I understand the urge to go after the right wing on this, but I also get where Welch is coming from about it being everyone’s responsibility. I think it’s a tricky line, because he’s right that everyone’s accountable for their own words and deeds, but it’s still the most vile and hateful rhetoric comes from the right.
I’d like to split the difference here and say that both are correct: that even if it’s more heavily weighted on the right, we can acknowledge that while still admonishing everyone who engages in hateful rhetoric by using representative samples. Call out people who use hate speech, regardless of partisan nature, and if you do it properly, by its very nature of random sampling you’ll see a few left wingers in there and a great many more conservatives, which tells the story quite clearly. Don’t exclude the left from criticism because you’re trying to avoid false equivalency, but don’t go out of your way to find parity where there is none.