The Lugar Center, founded by former Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) is a “platform for informed debate on global issues.” The Center recently published its Bipartisan Index which ranks each member of Congress on his or her ability to work with colleagues from across the aisle. The report uses bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship data rather than a subjective methodology.

Some will challenge the methodology because it does not account for the substance of a bills. It is far easier to co-sponsor with a colleague from the opposing party a bill that, say, honors veterans than one that proposes reforms to social security. Senator Lugar freely acknowledges this in his introduction to the report.

Even so, we believe the Bipartisan Index adds great value. It names names, effectively praising (and reinforcing the behavior of) those who practice bipartisanship and dinging those who don’t. In so doing, it raises awareness in a tangible way to the need for our leaders to improve their ability to govern, not just posture.

In a unique video presentation, Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton and Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, sees the emergence of a new debate where the populist left and right discover common ground on a number of critical issues and together can “make things happen”.

Hats off to House Speaker Paul Ryan for his strong plea for greater civility in our tumultuous electoral cycle. “Politics can be a battle of ideas, not insults,” he said in an upbeat speech to Congressional interns on March 23. “Ideas passionately expressed and put to the test, that’s what politics can be. All of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standard.” Of course, civility is only the first, although a necessary step, to achieving common ground. Civility encourages mutual respect and respect becomes an essential pathway to trust. Then deals can be made and compromises struck. But if mutual acrimony and insults rise to the point where negotiation is no longer possible, everybody loses.

At Common Ground Committee we share Representative Ryan’s optimism that political discourse can rise to higher level. Partisan bickering and gridlock should not be the norm. Our forums have shown that passionate yet civil debate where facts are valued and participants listen to each other are achievable and can lead to common ground. Read the full article here.

The intensity of the political noise caused by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia reminds us of the Spinal Tap amplifiers turned up to “11”. Painful to the ears. But amid that noise is the outpouring of respect and admiration from a host of people representing all bands of the political spectrum. To us no tribute to Scalia was as noteworthy as that paid to him by his SCOTUS colleague and ideological adversary, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In any debate, bringing light, not heat requires a willingness to listen to and respect the views of those who one might vehemently disagree with. In a relationship similar to but even deeper than that of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil Justices Ginsburg and Scalia not only respected and listened to each other but they were able to build a strong friendship that both clearly treasured. In this 2016 election year, they serve as a reminder that we can expect better not only from our leaders but also from ourselves in how we go about debating issues both public and personal.

Finding common ground without compromising fundamental principles is not something that magically happens. It can be particularly difficult in politics, but it is not impossible. Indeed, our organization has found it is always a very present possibility. But there are a number of keys to achieving it. In the following piece published in The New York Times on November 13th, Robb Willer, a professor of sociology at Stanford, identifies an important one: understand the values of those with views different than yours and craft your arguments accordingly. Even if not successful in persuading others, you will have contributed to an environment more likely to bring light, not heat to the debate. And that kind of environment is the petri dish in which common ground and consequent progress can germinate.