In Defense of Discourse
Former U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson weighs in on the political tenor in D.C. and its openness to crucial policy debates
February 28, 2011
After 25 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson is unsurprisingly well versed in the art of disagreements. And despite widespread complaints about polarization in Washington today, Johnson is more optimistic than most about the health of the U.S. political forum.
“Facts and analysis have been important, but what has now changed is that there is a respect for difference,” Johnson said, addressing a Harris School classroom of MPP students. “Even if not in agreement, [both sides] have a piece of the truth. And that is very important.”
A Chicago native who attended the University of Chicago Laboratory School, Johnson first became involved in politics with a run for the Connecticut State Senate in 1977. She began her tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1983 as a Republican representing the 6th district of Connecticut. Johnson would go on to become the first female member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee.
Her Feb. 14 Harris School lecture, “Bipartisan Bridge-Building: Possible with the 112th Congress?”, characterized the U.S. political environment as a “corridor of action,” where issues that have been previously shunted aside are now ones that spur discussion.
But respect for difference is only a part of the equation that has led to the convergence of dialogue at the national level, she said. In addition to factual policy analysis, the other vital component of national dialogue is ensuring that the public is engaged in the process of policy formulation.
“The public must accept analytical decisions,” Johnson said, pointing out the failure of previous attempts to reform social security. “The public wasn’t ready because when policymakers talked about social security, all they saw were starving seniors.”
Touching on the major social issues she faced throughout her political career, Johnson said that the current dire state of social programs—like social security—make entitlement reform decisions too urgent to end in stalemate. But she expressed some optimism that the necessary debate will take place.
“The national discussions about the challenges of the future have been proceeding,” Johnson said. “Now the conversation about social security is one that can be had without terror.”
- Susan Parker
Contact Information
Communications Office
Phone: 773-702-7681
