Let Bondi's toxic Epstein hearing be a wake-up call for all | Opinion

• Attorney General Pam Bondi faced bipartisan criticism during a congressional hearing over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files.
• The hearing became contentious, with Bondi directing personal insults at members of Congress from both parties.
• The article argues that while this behavior is a low point, it is not unprecedented in American political history.
• Two Erie experts suggest that civility and seeking nuance are essential for productive political discourse.

In a February 11 hearing, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi somehow managed to bring our national discourse even lower.

Things started out promising. The Epstein Transparency Act, which ordered the Justice Department to release the Epstein files within 30 days, passed 434 to 1 in the House and 100 to 0 in the Senate —seemingly the last thing we could all agree on. The act allowed the Justice Department to redact documents based on five specific justifications — for example, protecting the integrity of an active criminal investigation — but the act also required the department to publicly explain each and every redaction. Despite these clear congressional mandates, the Justice Department only published half the required documents, many of which were heavily (and often inexplicably) redacted. After public outcry, the department then unredacted some of the documents, which only deepened questions about why they were redacted in the first place.

Congress subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to explain herself. What followed was a political circus. The hearing descended into a shouting match between Bondi and legislators of both parties. At one point, Bondi called Representative Jamie Raskin a “washed-up loser.” Bondi accused Representative Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman — of being a “failed politician” with “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” And that wasn’t all; she had come prepared with a binder, meticulously organized and collated, filled with tailored insults for each of the legislators who dared to question her.

Even a schoolyard bully would blush.

This might feel like a low point in our history, but it isn’t. In the lead-up to the Civil War, Representative Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner half to death on the Senate floor over his abolitionist speech. That kind of political violence wasn’t uncommon back then; during that same era of history, Congressman John Dawson brandished a knife and a cocked pistol at anti-slavery champion Joshua Giddings on the Congress floor. While violence in Congress eventually abated, incivility didn’t. Senator Joseph McCarthy, for example, fanned the flames of the second Red Scare by lobbing reckless accusations, intimidating opponents, and favoring sensationalism over due process. And President Trump has used his personal brand of division, name-calling, and race-baiting to carry that ignoble torch forward throughout the last decade. Compared to the lowest points in our history of political discourse, Pam Bondi’s temper tantrum seems tame.

There's a better way forward

We are two activists, adjunct professors, and concerned citizens. One of us teaches law and has published scholarship about the First Amendment; the other teaches civility and serves in elected office. And we’re here to suggest a better way forward, no matter your political affiliation.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” It assumes that disagreement is normal — even healthy — in a free society. Note, though, that nothing in the Amendment’s text requires our speech to be civil. That responsibility lies with us.

And neuroscience tells us that civility is a prerequisite to productive discourse. Our brains tend to put their guard up when challenged, and we often respond to such challenges by seeking out information that confirms our preexisting views. The harder we push someone else, the more likely they are to plant their feet.

The “spiral-of-silence” theory of communication teaches us something similar. That theory posits that people’s willingness to share their opinions depends largely on their perception of whether those opinions are unpopular. When we are uncivil towards one another, we stretch the bonds that connect us as fellow members of a democratic society. When we shout each other down, the principles animating the First Amendment wither.

Seeking out lost nuance

Reversing this trend takes purposeful practice, and we each have a part to play. The 24-hour news cycle has made us accustomed to short, hot takes with little nuance, and apps like TikTok are exacerbating that problem by an order of magnitude. We must actively seek out that lost nuance. We must assume that our neighbors have good intentions, and we must strive to see the shades of gray in what they say. Rather than saying “that’s offensive” — a normative, judgmental statement that shuts down further conversation — we must ask, “what did you mean by that?”

We must attack ideas, not people. And we must demand that our elected officials do the same.

Grant Filbeck is an elected official, nonprofit manager, and adjunct lecturer at Penn State Behrend. Philip Seaver-Hall is an attorney, community activist, and adjunct law professor at Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law.