I tell this story to give an example of Russert's essential, unaffected decency. Sure he was ambitious, but he was grounded in his faith, his family and his roots so securely, that he was capable of being something most ambitious people in Washington cannot: utterly at ease with himself and therefore capable of treating everyone with respect.

And I tell this story to ask a question: After Russert, the deluge? Not to canonize him, but he operated in a way, and on an assumption, that seems all but lost in modern America: the ability to debate, to argue, with a reverence for the frail humanity of all.

We live—and we in journalism are truly immersed—in an accusatory culture that often denies the essential personhood of those we question or attack. I wrote a book in defense of the idea of argument, but without the Russerts of the world—seeking facts, demanding real answers and not rhetoric, but demanding in a respectful way—the American experiment in argument will not continue to work.

Russert's death is a blessing only in this one sense: we all need to stop and think of what he was aiming for and what he believed in, which was a country capable of governing itself through the practice of intelligent discussion and debate.

Here's a suggestion for Barack Obama and John McCain. In memory of Tim, why don't you agree to a series of genuine debates—pick whatever Russert-like moderator you can find—and have at it.

One of these candidates is going to seize the Russert spirit of persons of goodwill agreeing to disagree and yet with an eye to the common good and the national interest.

Whoever best captures that spirit will win the election.

At least that's what I think Tim would say. And that is the maddening thing about his death: he is the only person who could have put this story into its proper context.
If it's Sunday…

© 2008