(RNS) This week in Washington, George W. Bush seized an opportunity to announce his commitment to civility in government. If his gala audience of Republican Party donors expected a bloodthirsty battle cry, it heard instead a gentlemanly promise. "It is time to clean up the toxic environment in Washington, D.C.," Bush said. "I will restore respect and civility to our national politics." Bravo! But why wait to bring civility to the White House? Right now, Gov. Bush and Vice President Al Gore have a national stage upon which to demonstrate its virtues. Back before the caucuses and primaries, observers predicted one of the most civil campaigns in recent history. Both Bush and Gore signed a civility pledge in December, seemingly without a second thought. But as the primaries heated up and votes became precious, bitterness replaced civility. Attacks by surrogate, misrepresentation of facts, innuendo by phone pollsters: the dirty tricks went on parade. How do voters feel about negative campaigning? Polls show two diametrically opposite reactions. People don't like it, but they respond to it. And while negativity may excite some voters, the polls don't show how many others are driven away by it. Of course, no one looks away from a food fight, at first. But in the fray, we search for more than a winner. We seek a leader who is able to keep a cool head in the midst of controversy. Conflict can breed a dangerous dynamic in which adversaries begin to reflect the worst values of others in the ring. They stoop to conquer. This is not what we want in a leader. And if the victory in November is ruthless and dishonorable, the nation pays a price. Negativity in campaigns doesn't necessarily end with Election Day. Come January, politicians confronted with divided communities can't immediately go to work with the business of government. They have to heal divisions in order to get the citizenry behind an agenda. In recent elections, those fissures have been so deep that one of the first responses of the losing segment of the electorate is to find an aggressive way of investigating the winner. Political campaigns function as major arteries to the heart of our democracy. They contribute to a national sense of either health or systemic disease. When campaigns, however rigorous and colorful, are civil, they can enlighten voters and even inspire greater political involvement. But take away civility, and political campaigns can foment prejudice, disrupt communities and spew poison into the democratic process. Candidates, one suspects, don't like negative campaigning. They know that their names will be attached to the mudslinging for posterity. One can imagine a candidate's discomfort in the campaign war room as advisers, sensing a threat, push to go negative. The story of Lee Atwater is instructive. As a Republican campaign strategist for George Bush Sr., Atwater engineered the racist "Willie Horton" ads that helped defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. In the year before Atwater's sadly premature death from brain cancer, he spent a lot of precious time apologizing for that eruption of negative campaigning. It is April now in an election year. The primaries have been decisive, the presidential campaign is quiet, and our presumptive nominees have retired for a few weeks of fund raising and talk. It is a nice moment to declare beneficent intentions. But it's not enough to simply affirm civility as a principle for good times. Civility needs to drive all discussions, however heated, of issues and records right up to the eve of Election Day. The rewards for a higher standard in campaigning are many: candidates with clearly articulated positions, an informed electorate and a higher turnout at the polls. And for the victor, civility may deliver a true mandate to govern, which is the greatest plum of all.

Copyright 2000 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be reproduced without written permission.