Room for respect in political discourse?By Mark Trahant
Published July 27th 2003 in Seattle Post-Intelligencer
I remember the way I played basketball when I was a teenager. Well, sort of.
I now know I wasn't as talented as I thought I was then (but that's the fun of growing up).
Yet every game I played, whether in a gym or on the street, seemed to carry great importance. It's that passion I remember most.
"Foul!" I'd cry after missing a shot in a pickup game.
My friends would yell right back: "No way! I didn't touch you."
And we'd go round and round about each and every perceived infraction, our tempers bouncing up and down in concert with the game.
The last time I played with my friends -- some three decades later -- it dawned on me how much things have changed.
"Sorry!" I said. "I fouled you. Take it out."
"I don't think so. You didn't touch me," my friend replied in a fervent defense of my defense.
The passion we once had, the certainty that we were right, has given way to civility. We still care about winning -- well, sort of -- but not nearly as much as we once did.
For some reason I thought about my basketball evolution in the context of a fight on Capitol Hill. That story starts with a routine committee meeting -- and a charge by Democrats that Republicans had altered a pending bill overnight. A foul was alleged.
That was before the chaos -- including a call for Capitol Hill police to break up a meeting of Democrats.
Both sides admitted poor judgment.
A California Democrat, Rep. Fortney Stark, insulted one colleague, calling him a "fruitcake." He has since repented for using "words that were not becoming."
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was also remorseful. "As my mother would have put it, 'when they were passing out moderation, you were hiding behind the door.' ... You deserve better judgment from me and you'll get it."
Perhaps. But step back and think about what this incident says about the general state of our political discourse both here and in Washington, D.C.
Is it possible to disagree, even passionately, with someone yet still respect those very differences? Is it easier to engage in name calling instead of building a rational argument?
No society has quite figured this out. Consensus and fair play in politics are nice ideas that have evaded humans for most of our history. We like to think about working together -- and sometimes we do -- yet it's much easier to stick with our own team.
I suspect that much of this intensity comes from the system we use to elect the House of Representatives. Most states are divided into districts that favor one party or the other in district elections, so we are guaranteed to hire as representatives the most partisan, least consensus-oriented politicians available.
At least the Senate requires successful candidates to build a broader coalition. It's interesting to me that because of this structural difference, the voices of consensus often come from that side of Capitol Hill. The party labels fade when Joe Lieberman adds a conservative bent to liberal discourse or visa versa for, say, Olympia Snowe. The dialogue is richer because these voices move their own parties toward the center.
Of course the Senate is not perfect, either. I worry about a democratic body where two senators represent 500,000 citizens in Wyoming, while two other senators represent some 34 million residents of California. It no longer seems fair.
The House may be more representative in terms of numbers -- but it is far more partisan because of the district system. Less than 10 percent of House races are even competitive. That means 90 percent of the House is either re-elected or picked because of an ideological match with district demographics, rather than a vigorous campaign based on the issues of the day.
It's no wonder that House members -- sometimes running on extreme platforms -- shout at one another instead of seeking common ground.
We are a young country. And perhaps some of this is maturity. Down the road we could try alternatives -- districts with more than one representative, a proportional representation scheme or even statewide districts -- that could improve the tone of our national conversation.
We might even, one day, add the value of consensus to our list of what makes an ideal representative. It's not too much to ask to seek out a political discourse where points are made with respect.
That would be far better than apologies delivered days after crying foul.
Mark Trahant is editor of the editorial page. E-mail: [email protected]
I now know I wasn't as talented as I thought I was then (but that's the fun of growing up).
Yet every game I played, whether in a gym or on the street, seemed to carry great importance. It's that passion I remember most.
"Foul!" I'd cry after missing a shot in a pickup game.
My friends would yell right back: "No way! I didn't touch you."
And we'd go round and round about each and every perceived infraction, our tempers bouncing up and down in concert with the game.
The last time I played with my friends -- some three decades later -- it dawned on me how much things have changed.
"Sorry!" I said. "I fouled you. Take it out."
"I don't think so. You didn't touch me," my friend replied in a fervent defense of my defense.
The passion we once had, the certainty that we were right, has given way to civility. We still care about winning -- well, sort of -- but not nearly as much as we once did.
For some reason I thought about my basketball evolution in the context of a fight on Capitol Hill. That story starts with a routine committee meeting -- and a charge by Democrats that Republicans had altered a pending bill overnight. A foul was alleged.
That was before the chaos -- including a call for Capitol Hill police to break up a meeting of Democrats.
Both sides admitted poor judgment.
A California Democrat, Rep. Fortney Stark, insulted one colleague, calling him a "fruitcake." He has since repented for using "words that were not becoming."
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was also remorseful. "As my mother would have put it, 'when they were passing out moderation, you were hiding behind the door.' ... You deserve better judgment from me and you'll get it."
Perhaps. But step back and think about what this incident says about the general state of our political discourse both here and in Washington, D.C.
Is it possible to disagree, even passionately, with someone yet still respect those very differences? Is it easier to engage in name calling instead of building a rational argument?
No society has quite figured this out. Consensus and fair play in politics are nice ideas that have evaded humans for most of our history. We like to think about working together -- and sometimes we do -- yet it's much easier to stick with our own team.
I suspect that much of this intensity comes from the system we use to elect the House of Representatives. Most states are divided into districts that favor one party or the other in district elections, so we are guaranteed to hire as representatives the most partisan, least consensus-oriented politicians available.
At least the Senate requires successful candidates to build a broader coalition. It's interesting to me that because of this structural difference, the voices of consensus often come from that side of Capitol Hill. The party labels fade when Joe Lieberman adds a conservative bent to liberal discourse or visa versa for, say, Olympia Snowe. The dialogue is richer because these voices move their own parties toward the center.
Of course the Senate is not perfect, either. I worry about a democratic body where two senators represent 500,000 citizens in Wyoming, while two other senators represent some 34 million residents of California. It no longer seems fair.
The House may be more representative in terms of numbers -- but it is far more partisan because of the district system. Less than 10 percent of House races are even competitive. That means 90 percent of the House is either re-elected or picked because of an ideological match with district demographics, rather than a vigorous campaign based on the issues of the day.
It's no wonder that House members -- sometimes running on extreme platforms -- shout at one another instead of seeking common ground.
We are a young country. And perhaps some of this is maturity. Down the road we could try alternatives -- districts with more than one representative, a proportional representation scheme or even statewide districts -- that could improve the tone of our national conversation.
We might even, one day, add the value of consensus to our list of what makes an ideal representative. It's not too much to ask to seek out a political discourse where points are made with respect.
That would be far better than apologies delivered days after crying foul.
Mark Trahant is editor of the editorial page. E-mail: [email protected]
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.