Bipartisan National Citizens Panel Issues Second Round of Scores with the Dignity Index

Panel scores and comments offer support for a Dignity Strategy

SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 20, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — UNITE, the non-profit founded in 2018 by Tim Shriver to ease the country’s political divisions, today released the second round of scores from its National Citizen’s Panel analyzing political speech. This week’s results offer support for Shriver’s idea of a political “Dignity Strategy.”

“When our political parties use the contempt strategy – demonizing their opponents to energize their supporters – it has an unintended effect,” said Shriver. “It turns away the voters they need to win. The candidate that can treat the other side with dignity has a better chance of winning the swing voters who may decide this election.”

In 2018, More in Common published the Hidden Tribes report, coining the term “Exhausted Majority” for the two-thirds of Americans who were tired of politics, more flexible on their policies and more open to compromise. More in Common’s latest survey found that now three in four Americans say “they feel exhausted by the division in politics.”

The National Citizens Panel’s scores, explanations and comments are showing that panelists on the left and right can agree on the presence of dignity or contempt in political speech no matter who is speaking or what they’re saying. And the panelists not only recognize dignity; they respond to it.

Ninety-one percent of our panelists agree “It’s important to me that politicians and media personalities treat other Americans with dignity and respect.” Another 81% say “I lose respect for politicians and media personalities who can’t treat their opponents with dignity and respect.”

“The point of scoring with the Dignity Index is not to judge or condemn anyone for contempt, or even to give anyone an award for dignity,” said Tom Rosshirt, also a Dignity Index co-creator. “It’s to train ourselves to see the hidden cause of division – which is treating each other with contempt. People say contempt works, but that’s true only when it’s disguised as virtue. When contempt is exposed, it backfires.”

SCORES

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

1. Tim Walz on Donald Trump’s character: “Donald Trump is exactly what we knew him to be, we knew exactly what he, his true colors were on full display, it’s not his makeup but his character, and I said this ‘you saw that caricature of an old man shaking his hands at clouds and telling kids to get off of his yard.’ That’s what he did. Obsessed with the past and this is what is unforgivable: Rooting against the American people. Rooting against this country.”

91% of panelists agree that this was contempt
The most frequently chosen score was a THREE
The reasons given the most were “makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.” and “disdains the other side”
86% of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of THREE
The Conservative average score was 2.81, and the Liberal average score was 3.24

2. Eric Hovde commenting on Tammy Baldwin’s incumbency: “We simply can’t afford career politicians who just nod along with the DC crowd and get nothing done. It’s time to retire Tammy Baldwin and send a real problem solver to Washington.”

78% of panelists agree that this was contempt
The most frequently chosen score was a FOUR
The reasons given the most were “will distort or rename an opponent’s position to make it sound unappealing” and “We’re better than those people. They don’t really belong. They don’t really share our values.”
75% of panelists scored within -1 the score of FOUR
The Conservative average score was 3.952, and the Liberal average score was 3.8

3. JD Vance on Kamala Harris and the Ukraine-Russia War: “President Trump is right: what’s in our best interest is for the killing to stop. Kamala Harris’s incompetence will lead us into World War 3.”

96% of panelists agreed that this was contempt
The most frequently chosen score was a THREE
The reasons given the most were “makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.” and “disdains the other side”
86% of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of THREE
The Conservative average score was 2.905, and the Liberal average score was 2.48

4. Nikki Haley challenging Republican Presidential candidates about their rhetoric: “I think it’s because Donald Trump and JD Vance need to change the way they speak about women. You don’t need to call Kamala dumb; she didn’t get this far just by accident. She’s here, that’s what it is—she’s a prosecutor. You don’t need to talk about intelligence or looks or anything else, just focus on the policies. When you call even a Democrat woman dumb, Republican women get their backs up too. The bottom line is we win on policies.”

83% of panelists agree this was dignity
The most frequently chosen score was a FIVE
The reason most given was “speaks openly, explaining their views, but never with contempt.” and “I share my views with no contempt, so they’re easier for others to hear.”
64% of panelists scored it within +1 of a FIVE
The Conservative average score was a 5.095, and the Liberal average score was 5.4

5. Stuart Varney on Harris’s small business policy proposal: “When a political candidate comes up with what I think is a good idea, I have to call it a good idea. And a $50,000 tax cut—not tax cut but tax credit—for small businesses, coupled with less red tape, I gotta say that is a good idea. Regardless of her other tax ideas.”

97% of panelists agree this was dignity
The most frequently chosen score was a SIX
The reasons most given were “can see the good in the other side and will acknowledge their skills and accomplishments.” and “we don’t let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on.”
97% of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of a SIX
The Conservative average score was 5.619, and the Liberal average score was 5.640

6. Lawrence O’Donnell commenting on Trump’s claim about the safety of NYC under a Harris Presidency: “Just think about how stupid you have to be to say that. Then think about how stupid you have to be to clap for that.”

96% of panelists agree this was contempt
The most frequently chosen score was a THREE
The reasons most given were “makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.” and “disdains the other side”
92% of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of THREE
The Conservative average score was 2.952, and the Liberal average score was 3.120

7. Elissa Slotkin on Republicans and Democrats working together: “There are still serious people who understand that the only way to actually move the country forward is when you have reasonable Democrats and reasonable Republicans who compromise and work together — and that’s not a dirty word.”

99% of the panelists agree this was dignity
The most frequently chosen score was a SIX
The reasons most given were “We talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share, and using them as a basis for cooperation.” and “We don’t let our disagreements keep us from cooperating on the things we agree on.”
89% of panelists scored within +1 or -1 the score of a SIX
The Conservative average score was 6.048, and the Liberal average score was 5.920

8. Nathan Clark of Springfield OH, pushing back on hate: “My son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state, and even the nation. But don’t spin this towards hate. In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way, and be the inspiration. What many people in this community and state and nation are doing is the opposite of what you should be doing. Sure, we have our problems here in Springfield and in the U.S., but does Aiden Clark have anything to do with that?”

93% of panelists agree that this was dignity
The most frequently chosen score was a EIGHT
The reasons given the most were “has no sense of moral superiority” and “Everyone is born with inherent worth, so I treat everyone with dignity no matter what.”
55% of panelists scored within -1 the score of EIGHT
The Conservative average score was 6.000, and Liberal average score was 6.640

The panelists are offered a chance to make comments on different passages and their scores. Here are some notable comments from this week:

A panelist on the right in response to Tim Walz’s quote said: “I feel there’s always a proper way/respectful way of saying certain things without using contempt…. contempt does not help in any situation. It just makes things more complicated. Attacking somebody will bring more attack.”

A panelist on the right in response to Elissa Slotkin’s quote said: “Yes, politics in its pure essence is about compromise,”

A moderate panelist said in response to Elissa Slotkin: “With the politicization of everything these days, all it takes is ONE voice to bring things closer to “somewhat” normal.”

A panelist on the left in response to Lawrence O’Donnell’s quote said: “Calling the other side stupid is not treating them with dignity.”

A panelist on the right in response to Stuart Varney’s quote said: “In my opinion this is a 6 because we can clearly see the acknowledgement/ cooperation when it is a good idea. and I would love to see more people like that. In the world we are living today, we can see candidates giving great ideas but just because we don’t like them we don’t acknowledge/ or don’t say anything and that’s wrong.”

A panelist on the left in response to Stuart Varney’s quote said: “People should give credit where credit is due. That doesn’t mean you agree with everything. But it does give you somewhere to start a conversation.”

A panelist on the left in response to Stuart Varney’s quote said: “I scored this a SEVEN based on the person’s current political leanings. It takes guts to praise an opponent’s idea and certainly can lead to discussions on the subject that ultimately could benefit the country.”

A panelist on the right in response to JD Vance’s quote said: “This comment is a correct sentiment stated poorly. It promotes division, not discussion, and should be avoided if cooperation is to be had.”

A panelist on the left in response to JD Vance’s quote said: “I feel like this statement is pretty disheartening from coming from any candidate or any political person against somebody else.”

For more information about The Dignity Index and to access the full analysis of the debate, please visit www.dignity.us.

Contact: Nicole TideiPhone: 203.376.1192

SOURCE Project UNITE, Inc.