Congress Must Adopt Civility Lessons from Charlie Kirk to Restore Respectful Discourse

By Michael B. Abramson

One of the most admirable aspects of Charlie Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” events was his approach to engaging with individuals who held opposing views. Kirk demonstrated respect by listening, asking thoughtful questions, and fostering dialogue without resorting to ridicule or mockery. He even encouraged attendees to treat dissenters with kindness, maintaining composure and patience throughout interactions.

The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate could benefit from emulating Kirk’s example during committee hearings. Recent sessions have become increasingly contentious, with lawmakers frequently interrupting witnesses, speaking over them, and making dismissive remarks. Examples include the testimony of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FBI Director Kash Patel, where interruptions hindered the exchange of critical information.

Such behavior undermines the purpose of hearings, which is to gather insights for legislative oversight and public understanding. For instance, during Kennedy’s hearing, repeated disruptions obstructed the public’s ability to learn about health policy positions. To address this, Congress should extend time limits for witnesses while shortening those for questioners. A proposed structure could allocate 10 minutes total, with three minutes for questions and seven for answers, allowing witnesses to provide detailed responses.

Additionally, Congress must curb disruptive behavior by implementing a contempt system modeled after judicial procedures. A bipartisan committee could review allegations of misconduct, imposing penalties such as redirecting campaign funds to charity. Repeated violations might lead to removal from office.

Kirk’s model offers a blueprint for restoring civility in legislative proceedings. By adopting his principles, the House and Senate could foster more productive and respectful discourse.