♪♪♪ announcer: Funding for the "Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund.

Jason Perry: Tonight on the "Hinckley Report."

With weeks before ballots are mailed, new polling shows what issues will drive voters to the polls.

Utah's leaders face off in debates and outline their major policy positions.

And as negative ads hit the airwaves, our panel discusses whether civility still plays a role in politics.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason Perry: Good evening, and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

I'm Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Covering the week we have Natalie Gochnour, Director of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah; Boyd Matheson, host of "Inside Sources" on KSL NewsRadio; and Bryan Schott, Political Correspondent with the Salt Lake Tribune.

So glad to have you all here.

We are 32 days from the mid-term elections, and I want to talk about civility for a moment, because we are getting all sorts of material in our mailboxes, our--the commercials on our TVs, where we're streaming.

Natalie, start with you for just a moment, because you have been so connected to so many campaigns for a long time.

Are things less civil now than they were in the past?

Natalie Gochnour: Absolutely, that's my opinion.

Part of it happens because of what's happened with super PACs and so much money, you know, in political life.

It's a real problem, and I think you know this, Jason, but they're increasingly not calling it civility, but is it dignified political speech?

And civility has this idea of, you know, you can be civil with your wife, but that wouldn't be good enough, right?

You need to be more dignified.

And so, you're hearing more and more conversations about, is our political speech dignified?

Jason Perry: Uh-huh, Boyd, so wanna really ask the question about if it's dignified speech or if it's civil or if it's not civil, what kind of impact is this having on participation and people's views of the candidates and issues?

Boyd Matheson: Yeah, you know, it's sad that we're at this point where we have to demonize and weaponize, you know, all the words of our opponents politically that we not only-- we can't just disagree with them, but we have to demonize them in order to justify our own position.

And so, often what we've found is that if we have contempt, contempt is really the problem, the cancer on the country, because contempt says that because you disagree with me, you're worthless.

And because of that I can melt down your Facebook page, I can blow up your Twitter feed, I can say all kinds of horrible things, and I can still sleep well at night and go to church on Sunday and feel good about myself.

And so, that's--a lot of this has to come back to a "we the people" issue.

We often talk about you get what you pay for.

I think as voters we actually pay for what we get, and part of it is by validating bad behavior.

Every time, just like with your teenagers, if you validate and let them get away with bad behavior, bad behavior will continue.

Jason Perry: So, Bryan, we have to ask if it works a little bit too then, right?

So, you talked about negative campaigning and commercials, which I want to get into in just a moment.

Does it work?

Does negative campaigning or lack of civility or dignity, does it work?

Bryan Schott: Yes, that's what our system rewards right now.

It incentivizes it.

If you say something outrageous about your opponent or about the other party, it drives fundraising, it drive small dollar donations, it gets you on Fox News.

We're in an attention economy.

Being civil does not pay off in this economy where the loudest voices get all the attention, and they raise all the money.

We see that in all these campaigns, the U.S. Senate campaign, they're not fighting it over issues, they're fighting it over ads and they're fighting it over personality because there's really no--no one is proposing anything, and that's because this is the way that you get dollars, and this is the way that you speak to an increasingly polarized and tribalistic voting base.

Natalie Gochnour: Bryan, I think you're spot on there.

If I think about the Senate race, you know, it's a big, big deal, and I can't even remember where they're talking about issues.

I don't know the differentiation in candidates on, you know, gun safety, I don't know their differentiation on fiscal policy, I don't know what they're gonna be doing for high gas prices; that's really a problem.

A Senate race, a U.S. Senate race, and there's not-- it's not issue-driven.

Jason Perry: Let's get to that, because we have a very interesting question from a University of Utah student on this very point.

And, Boyd, wanted you to address this one after we hear from her.

Delker Portocarrero: Hi, I'm Delker Portocarrero, I'm a senior at the University of Utah studying criminology, sociology, and political science.

On Tuesday Evan McMullin released that his campaign is suing Club for Growth and three other television stations in Utah for defamation after running a deceptive and demeaning ad that has been airing since last week that distorts comments made by McMullin on CNN back in 2017.

This got me thinking about the future of campaigning.

Are candidates going to campaign towards people's emotions by demeaning the other candidates, or are we going to take a more policy driven approach towards campaigning?

Thank you.

Jason: Hey, go ahead, Boyd.

Boyd Matheson: You know, it's so interesting to look at how these things play out, and this is one of those we can be equal opportunity offenders in terms of ads that have gone out.

You have Politifact that checks many of the ads on both sides, and there's a lot of deception there, and it does prevent us-- it keeps us a safe distance from actually having the policy and the principal conversation.

And so, I think we have to start looking at--we often talk about reform in terms of campaign finance and what goes on there.

One thing that I have always thought would be interesting as we talk about the super PACs which can't coordinate with candidates, it's illegal, and that often becomes an excuse, right?

Because we're like, it's not my fault, I can't control them.

What if we had-- Natalie Gochnour: Conveniently, I might add.

Boyd Matheson: Conveniently, absolutely, and so what if instead, what if instead we had campaigns as a super PAC so that they had to own all of the messaging, and that way politicians couldn't just say, well, that's a PAC, I can't interact with them.

If they were a super PAC, then they would actually have to and be forced to actually own all the messaging in the campaign.

I think that would totally change the dynamic.

Bryan Schott: You know, one of the things that she said in her question was is this the future of campaigning?

It's what we're doing now, it's what we've been doing ever since the Willie Horton ad in the George W.--George H. W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis race.

You know, that's probably the most famous, but you see it all the time, and you see ads that are designed only to go on social media.

You look at the Lincoln Project, they only put stuff up on Twitter, and there--and what they do is they troll people.

You see groups like the Midas Project, you see other groups doing that as well, and what they're doing is they're trying to raise money so they can continue to do this, and they're setting the conversation terms, and it's not about policy anymore.

It's just not.

Jason Perry: Go ahead, Natalie.

Natalie Gochnour: There are exceptions, and they're big exceptions.

I had the privilege of moderating the Third Congressional District debate last night for the Utah Debate Commission.

It was a very issues-oriented discussion, the speech was very respectful, and so, Bryan, I agree with your assessment that the future doesn't look good, but we do have major times when we break through, and I felt like that happened this week with the Utah Debate Commission.

Boyd Matheson: That's what happens when you get people in the room together.

I had a really interesting experience with a student down to Utah Valley University when Mike Pence, former vice president, came to speech--to speak there, and I asked this student, I wanted to get their perception.

And the student introduced himself as a socialist, and he said, "I've spent the last five years, arguing about, demeaning, attacking everything that Mike Pence had said."

He said, "Today I was in the room with him, and I had to see him as human.

I had to see him as a human being, and he said all of these things," he said, "I found him to be a principled person, a passionate person, someone of belief and character," and then he said, "I couldn't square this human being I had met with the monster I had created in my mind."

And often that's what we're allowing all of these politics to do is we create these monsters, these demons that they're evil, they're awful, they're horrible, and if we get in the room, if we'd have a different kind of conversation, I think the American people are starving for it.

They don't know how to ask for it, it'll never appear on a Pew research poll, but when they experience it like what Natalie did last night in that debate, when they experience it, it's like oxygen, and it actually works.

And I think we have to trust the American people, and the American people have to trust themselves when they hear something that doesn't quite square, it doesn't quite square, and so let's do it different.

Natalie Gochnour: Bryan, I know you'll have opinions here, and then I'll go after you.

Bryan Schott: Well, you know, yeah, it's all well and good to have a debate, but how many people actually watched it?

That's a question you have to ask yourself.

Also, what is the moment from that debate that everyone's paying attention to?

It is a really ham-fisted answer about abortion from representative John Curtis.

That's the only thing that's going to break through, and it's going everywhere.

So, it's again back to the attention economy, it gives people that hit of dopamine.

You know, getting in the room with someone, that's great, but politicians and candidates are becoming increasingly distanced from their voters.

They don't want to face them.

So, what they do is they're on Twitter, they've got, you know, they put out their own videos, they won't talk to the media, you know.

I probably could sit here and list all the politicians who will not return my calls when I'm trying to run a story, because they they can't control that message.

So, you know, it's all well and good to talk about this stuff in the abstract, but it's not--the impact just isn't there.

Natalie Gochnour: And if I were to bring together what both of you are saying, I do think we need oxygen, we need healing, and we ought to talk about what are the reforms that we could put in place that would fix some of this?

And so, I'll throw out one.

Jason Perry: Okay, throw it out.

Natalie Gochnour: A quick one.

I used to be against term limits, I used to think the ballot box is where term limits happened.

About ten years ago I jumped ship, and the reason I like term limits is I think it puts someone that's in the U.S. Senate, I give them two twelve- year, you know, two terms of twelve years, and then I would refresh that place, and I think that would have some really interesting dynamics, because you can't become career politicians, you can't develop so much incumbency power, and that last six years you're gonna vote your conscience.

Boyd Matheson: And you should be able to do it for the first six years too, is what we hope to get to.

And I actually agree with Natalie.

I believe term limits could be very powerful with one condition, and that is you would also need to have term limits for congressional staff, because otherwise you would end up with a different form of bureaucracy that would just stay, and the members would cycle through, and I always tell people in D.C., it's designed to be seasonal work.

You go in there, you work for a season, you go like crazy, you leave a legacy, and then you get out of town.

That's what the founders had in mind.

Natalie Gochnour: This is interesting.

You know, the Russian quote, the Russian tzar that said, "I don't rule Russia, 10,000 clerks do"; that's your point.

Boyd Matheson: Yeah, exactly.

Jason Perry: I remember elected officials calling them the B team, these bureaucrats, right, 'cause they're there when I got there, and they're going to be there when I leave.

Very interesting.

One last point on this, and I want to talk about one more reform you're working on, Natalie, and it's-- Bryan, to you on these super PACs, any way to reign these in?

Not only that part right there, but what do you think the obligation is of these candidates?

Because the law doesn't let them coordinate, but that doesn't mean these candidates--and both of them have had commercials in the Senate race that media said are just not true.

What is the answer right there and their responsibility?

Bryan Schott: They don't really have any, because the law says that they don't have any.

Don't hate the players, hate the game, you know.

The game was put--once Citizens United started, once the Supreme Court made that decision and allowed for just floods of dark money and corporate money into campaigns, it opened the floodgates for this.

And so, the candidates have no responsibility, they can't coordinate.

So, you know, these super Super PACs can go in, say whatever they want, they can form--you see PACs forming other PACs or PACs donating to other PACs to hide where the money is coming from, a lot of these places we don't know where the donations are coming from, so, you know, there's really no responsibility, and that's because of the way the law is set up.

Jason Perry: Very good, just one last point on this as sort of a reform you're working on.

Will you talk about what you're rolling out this week, this Dignity Index is something you've been working on at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Talk about some of the other players there and what you're hoping to do over the next couple of weeks.

Natalie Gochnour: Well, the issue is how do you start to affect change in political speech?

One way you can do that is by actually looking at campaign letters, debate transcripts, speeches, social media accounts, and you can actually try to quantify is this speech dignified or not?

So, the Dignity Index, you know, ranges from one to eight, and one is like violence, political violence, basically violent speech, and up at 8 it's loving your enemy, and you can actually quantitatively train people to code these things, and then give them an index.

So, the Hinckley Institute, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, students at University of Utah were-- project where we're doing this.

I know KSL's a media sponsor helping with this, and it's all in partnership with Unite, a nonprofit led by Tim Shriver.

Boyd Matheson: I was chatting with Tim Shriver the other day, and as we went through this, Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat in the House is great.

He's actually been here in the state of Utah when Mia Love was in office, working on some poverty projects, and he said it best.

He said, you know, "We get scored on everything we do in Congress, how we vote on guns, how we vote on education, how good are we on taxes, but we've never been scored on what we say and having that dignity."

So, the Dignity Index is a way to change the conversation and at least make people aware.

And I think one of the most important parts of the Dignity Index is not what it's telling us about our politicians, it's about what it will tell us about ourselves.

Natalie Gochnour: Absolutely right.

It teaches us, and I, in developing some of the curriculum and thinking about it, I had to politically code a speech.

I looked at President Trump's speech at the National Archives where he talked about Critical Race Theory.

It was awful.

It scored very low on the Dignity Index.

But I also read President Biden's speech on--it was on the MAGA Republicans.

He did not score well on that speech, and I learned something, 'cause I learned that it's happening on both sides in a significant way.

Boyd Matheson: Yeah, yeah.

This is equal opportunity offense for sure.

Jason Perry: Bryan, tell me based on these conversations you have with so many elected officials, let's just say a candidate gets--"I'm nothing but ones and twos on this index."

Do they change their behavior if you know they're--you know, just kinda curious what you see.

Bryan Schott: I don't think so.

You know, my philosophy is always expect the worst possible outcome, and I'm hardly ever disappointed.

It's easy to say that this is biased, who's coming up with the--who's coming up with the scoreboard, you know, and especially when we are in--if you look at the way the districts are drawn, and they are so highly gerrymandered that there's just a handful of competitive races even here in the state.

There's not--there's so many republicans in safe districts, there's so many Democrats in safe districts, that their only worry is getting challenged from their left or right, and it's a primary challenge.

So, where's the incentive to moderate your speech when you have someone who's coming after you, saying, you're a RINO or sayin' that you've abandoned your principles?

Natalie Gochnour: Everything is rigged, and I just can't go that far.

Okay, like, I see times when we break through, I see times when, you know, exceptions happen, and where the institutions work, where the goodheartedness of people work.

So, I just want to be a little bit more positive than you are.

And I will say that the Dignity Index changed me.

And, yes, you can challenge the scoring, but that inspires a conversation, and you learn from that conversation.

Boyd Matheson: I think the most important thing is we're looking to the wrong place.

This is not about having a politician suddenly shift, this is about us shifting.

We have to remember that our politicians have really never led in this country.

It's community and culture that lead, and the politicians follow, and we have to trust that.

And it's been like that since the beginning.

Even something like the Declaration of Independence, inspired, wonderful document, but it wasn't a leading document.

Revolutionary War had been goin' for 18 months before the politicians got around to putting it on paper.

Natalie Gochnour: Find a parade, and run-- Boyd Matheson: And they run to the front.

They love to do that, and so I think we have to look at this index, because I've been looking at the Index, and it's changed the way I've had conversations with my children, with my neighbor, with my colleagues at work.

Tim Shriver often talks about having Dividers Anonymous, you know, groups all around the country, because we often buy into that, and we actually perpetuate it by what we're putting out in terms of our social media.

Natalie Gochnour: It forces you to think about other life experiences.

Bryan Schott: But you're blaming the voters, but this is what they want.

You know, go back to Access Hollywood, that, you know, you had people calling for Donald Trump to drop out of the race, and he didn't, and he ended up winning, and ever--and people who called for him to drop out of the race, Jason Chaffetz, Mike Lee, have reversed themselves 100%.

So, you know, this is what the voters want.

So, you can say the voters, the voters need to change our minds, this is what they want.

They have been electing people like Donald Trump, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, you know, who was a leader in all the violent rhetoric leading up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

This is what they want.

So, to say, you know, we've got to spoon-feed them this thing or we've got to change their minds, this is what they want, and this is all that the candidates are responding to.

Natalie Gochnour: What would you do to heal?

Bryan Schott: You know, as a reporter, it's not my job to say what I would do to heal.

That's not my job.

You know, it's my job to look at what is going on right now, and if you look at our moment, we are tribalized.

Politics is a zero sum game.

I win, you lose.

If you win, I lose.

There's no room for compromise.

So, you know, our system does not incentivize this at all.

Jason Perry: One of the interesting things is--I've been reading this Dignity Index too-- is it's beyond the numbers, it's how we view the speech itself.

It is a frame of reference when you're listening to commentary or you're reading the Tweets or those kinds of things as well, which is also an interesting component of this.

Natalie Gochnour: Do you label people, do you call 'em names, you know, things like that.

Jason Perry: Just things that we might not filter as well, but it's worth paying attention to.

Very interesting.

A couple of things on the debates.

Key themes, you moderated last night's, our debate, one or two key themes, and then, Boyd, you're doing the CD-2 debate next week.

Natalie Gochnour: So, this is Glenn Wright, the Democratic candidate, and John Curtis, the Republican candidate, Third Congressional District.

The first theme, I would say, is it was very dignified in the way that they had an issue oriented discussion, that was wonderful to see.

There were definitely contrasts between the candidates.

They were different on how they viewed President Biden's actions on marijuana, they were different on abortion, they were different on how you fix gas prices and inflation, and so I think the audience got to see a lot of comparisons and contrasts.

I want to credit the Utah Debate Commission for doing this, it's so important.

This is an institution in our state we need to support.

Jason Perry: Preview of your debate.

Boyd Matheson: We'll have the Second Congressional down at Southern Utah University next Friday, and I hope it's in similar mode in terms of the dignity of the conversation.

But I think it's also important that we get past kind of the, you know, the 30-second, 60-second canned answer that they've rehearsed, you know, 70,000 times before.

I'm actually for a more Lincoln-Douglas style debate, and make 'em actually--this week, I was looking back at the original Kennedy-Nixon debate.

Their opening statements were eight minutes long, so they had to say something that actually mattered, and often it's getting past those talking points and those bullet points to get to the real conversation.

One of the things I hope we can get to is a conversation of how they look at the role of government, how they make decisions, and I always think one of the real important questions that we should ask any candidate at any level is what would this person do to make a difference if they lost?

And if you can't figure out what the answer to that is, then that's probably someone who is gonna stay there a long time.

It may be the best job they ever have, so every decision's gonna be tainted by holding on to that for as long as possible.

If you look at it in a different way of how would they make a difference in our community, how would they make a difference professionally or personally, it really changes the dynamics, so we hope to get some of those conversations.

Jason Perry: Bryan, what do you want to see?

Bryan Schott: You know, I'm always--I always enjoy a good policy debate.

You know, unfortunately, if you look at the prospects of the election in all four of our congressional debates, there's very little chance that the Republican is going to lose.

So, you know, they're going into this to play defense, you know, because incumbents don't win because of a debate.

They can sure as heck lose because of a debate, but they don't win.

So, you know, I'm not a big fan of gotcha moments, I don't think that those are great, but that's what everybody gloms onto.

So, you know, I'm hoping for a robust discussion, you know, and I would hope that it would make a difference.

Jason Perry: Let's talk about one of these policy issues in Washington D.C., has some history here in Utah, because this just happened yesterday.

Boyd, let's start with you.

President Biden is going to pardon all federal offenders of simple marijuana possession.

This was a campaign promise for him that he's delivering on.

The timing is interesting as well.

Talk about the implications of that decision.

Boyd Matheson: I think one of the big challenges with all that is executive action, that I always say what is done by executive action usually gets undone by executive action, and we've seen that on a wide range of things from currently we're seeing with DACA, with those students are now back in limbo again because one president did one thing, one did another, so while there may be some specifics in terms of the marijuana piece, this is an overarching problem for both political parties, whoever's in the White House, that when Congress doesn't do its job, the executive branch is all too happy to take that power and use it, and then when they do that, then somebody files a lawsuit, and that's why we end up with such a contentious Supreme Court is because Congress isn't doing its job on the front end, then the executive branch overreaches, and then somebody files a lawsuit.

Jason Perry: So, the lawsuits may come.

Natalie, what's interesting about this action from President Biden is he called on governors across the United States to pardon their prisoners in a similar position, and our Governor, Governor Cox, had a very quick response.

I'm curious what your comments are about this.

This is what he said.

"Whether it's transferring student loan debts to millions of other taxpayers or ignoring federal enforcement laws, the president continues to disregard the checks and balances of our system.

Taking an executive action like this only weeks before an election is nothing more than a desperate attempt to win votes."

Natalie Gochnour: I agree with what Governor Cox has said, but I will also say that it troubles me that we're not talking about the issue, the substance of what happened.

So, I'm not a fan of legalized marijuana, I'm glad that our state doesn't have recreational marijuana, I think it's a gateway drug, I think it leads to trouble, I think it hurts our workforce, it hurts our kids, but do I think that by having possession of marijuana, you should be locked up in a federal penitentiary?

I don't.

And I think that that was the right policy decision.

It troubles me that that we want to go to, oh, executive orders, or not respecting the role of government or political timing of it.

Why don't we talk about the substance of it?

And if Congress would do something, maybe there wouldn't be so many executive orders.

Boyd Matheson: Yeah, exactly.

Jason Perry: Bryan, what was interesting to me is we did a poll recently asking what Utah voters care most about, and I have not seen this one rise so high for a while, but it was the role of the federal government was second on the list of so many people in the state of Utah, the proper role of them.

This might feed into that a bit.

Bryan Schott: It might, but, you know, you have to wonder what they think the proper role of the federal government is.

You know, and so that's one of the things you would have to drill down on, because you do hear candidates, they always love to talk about this on the campaign trail, what is the proper role of the federal government?

Well, you know, if you're on the right it's to stay out of your life.

You know, it's to protect private property.

If you're on the left, the proper role of government is to help people who need some help.

You know, and so there's a divide there.

So, you know, you can say that, but what did they actually mean is what you have to ask more about.

Jason Perry: Very interesting, and of note, Governor Cox does not have the authority to pardon any of these people, which shows a part of his-- Natalie Gochnour: We save that for our our Board of Pardons and Parole.

Jason Perry: Exactly, which is our system here in Utah.

In our last 30 or 40 seconds, Natalie, because you're sort of the key economist for the whole state of Utah, the economy remains the number one issue.

Impact of that with the debates coming forward and how people show up.

Natalie Gochnour: Well, it's a real problem, having high gas prices, having high inflation.

It looks like the jobs numbers are starting to do what everyone expects, and that is we're having higher and higher unemployment, less job openings.

I'm expecting us to go into a mild- to medium-sized recession within the next six months.

I don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.

All the signals point to that, and so that in a political sense it means that incumbents are in trouble.

Jason Perry: Thank you for this, thank you for your comments this evening, very, very good.

And thank you for watching the "Hinckley Report."

This show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org/HinckleyReport or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

♪♪♪