A civil tongue: may this House come to order.

Those lamenting the decline of comity in our culture range from Norman Lear on the left to Ernest Lefever on the right. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post some time ago, Lear, founder of People for the American Way, listed the problems in our society and drew a parallel with the fall of Rome. Rome fell, he said, citing historian Lewis Mumford, not because of political or economic ineptitude, or because of the barbarian invasions, but because of a "barbarization from within." One aspect of that barbarization in our midst is apparent in "the harshness and ugliness that have entered Western civilization," now more pronounced than ever, as Lefever of the Ethics and Public Policy Center told the Baltimore Sun.

Thus harshness affects us all in our daily lives. Each morning we must steel ourselves for the unpleasant encounters the day may bring: The lane jumpers making the daily commute perilous; drivers cutting past and making obscene gestures; the cacophony of horns if one slows for any reason; the jockeying for a place in the parking lot; surly attendants first, then indifferent waiters and clerks later--irritations too numerous to mention. Rudeness has become the norm rather than the exception. Common courtesy and an appreciation of the rights of others seem to have disappeared from American life.

And worse, this harshness and ugliness affects the way in which the laws that govern our lives are made. When, this year, Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole left his beloved Senate to campaign, he spoke with feeling in his farewell about his friendships with many Democratic senators over the years--senators like Hubert Humphrey, Philip Hart, and George McGovern. There was a time when such bipartisan friendships were usual, when legislators with opposing views could debate and then leave the chamber arm and arm. It was a healthy state of affairs because, as has been so often said, politics is the art of compromise. The legislation resulting from such amicable and reasonable debate benefited from the best thoughts on both sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately, bipartisan friendships like those recalled by Dole are now a thing of the past in both the House and the Senate. Newly elected members often have hardened ideological views and no previous legislative experience. They tend to treat members of the opposite party like enemies rather than as colleagues with differing opinions. Debate is rancorous. Despite the rules of both houses of Congress requiring courtesy, it is no longer unheard of to witness members shouting, imputing chicanery, and calling names. Fourteen senators--among them some of the most able and distinguished--are leaving the Senate this year. This is the greatest number in 100 years. Some are leaving for reasons of health and age, but most because the atmosphere in which they serve is poisoned with animosity. Many House members are leaving as well for the same reason.

In the House, many of the members remaining are beginning to seek remedies. One who has long sought to restore civility and has been a lone voice pleading for its return is Republican Congressman Amo Houghton of New York. It is his belief that better legislation would again be achieved if his colleagues co-operated when possible instead of attacking one another. "Screaming works, short term," he said in an interview in the Washington Post this year, "but if you want to get something done you have to perceive what the other person thinks."

Lately, according to columnist David Broder, Houghton has been joined by Democratic Congressman David Skaggs of Colorado and Republican Ray LaHood of Illinois. They have proposed that all members of the House of both parties, and their spouses, take a few days early next year to get to know one another. The days would be designed to restore a sense of fellowship to a very divided Congress where communication between members of the opposing parties has completely broken down. Skaggs and LaHood, in turn, have been joined by about a dozen other members in signing a letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich and Minority Leader Dick Gephardt asking that they plan now for such a post-election session.

Another effort to combat the prevailing incivility was launched by retiring Congressman Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Calif.). There is a tradition in the House that each day begins with a series of one-minute speeches. Until recently, these speeches were given by members to announce bills they intended to introduce or to call attention to events in their districts and the achievements of various constituents (such achievements might range from a hundredth birthday to developing a new variety of cabbage). But of recent years the one-minute-speech sessions have become an occasion for the trading of hard-edged political attacks, an acrimonious start to the legislative day. Congressman Beilenson enlisted the cooperation of a senior Republican, Bill Archer of Texas, to transfer the one-minute speeches to the end of the day.

They organized a bipartisan group of fifty members to write to Speaker Gingrich asking for this change, a change they agreed would "be an important step toward restoring dignity and civility in the House." "These brief speeches," they continued, "have become a series of sound-bite assaults, often prepared not by the members themselves but by Republican and Democratic political staff who have found this format to be highly conducive to the kinds of attacks that used to be reserved for campaign commercials." Putting the speeches at the end of the day would allow people to see the House as actually engaged in legislative work and looking like "a legislative body composed of thoughtful people who are able to debate issues and express disagreement in a dignified and polite manner." The writers hope that the public could once again see Congress as such a disciplined and responsive body. Leaving the contentious speeches to the end of the day would mean fewer viewers of C-Span and, quite likely, fewer tired lawmakers hanging about to make the speeches.

These proposals are modest at best. Those of us alarmed and dismayed by the prevalent incivility in our society may well wonder if, put into effect, they would make the desired difference in the present poisonous climate in Congress. They are yet to be agreed to by the leadership, which unfortunately itself remains part of the problem. But change must start some place. If change is achieved in the now deeply divided body that is of such importance to us, we can hope that other institutions like community governments and schools will make similar efforts. Change might creep gradually through the whole society. Above all, it must be attempted.