Collaboration or Condemnation

 

I recently had the pleasure of catching up with an old work colleague who is now an elected official in a hotly politically divided state legislature. She is around my age and we've known each other for many years, during which time I have built up so much respect for the ways she gives her all in serving her constituents and her state. 

One manifestation of this, which is somewhat controversial among her younger followers, is the intentional efforts she puts into getting to know, working with, and at times supporting her fellow electeds who are on the other side of the aisle. To be sure, on most issues, they do not see eye to eye, and my colleague is quite principled and vocal about that. However, as a legislative body and as a group of public servants, they must work for the common good, and so practically what that means for my colleague is that there are times she must collaborate, co-sponsor, and stand with her counterparts.

She sees no character flaw or integrity inconsistency in this, nor do I. She is doing a job, a very public and important one, and fulfilling that job requires disagreement at times and cooperation at other times. Their being very apart on, say, worker's rights, does not prohibit them from coming together on, say, child care.

When I was young, I tended to think that I saw things clearly, dividing the world into right and wrong and pouring my energy into doing right and opposing wrong. I think this is common and good, when we are young, to think and act this way. But I worry that today's youth, like me before them, are quick to pass these judgments, and then having rendered judgment to consider "the other side" not worthy of anything but condemnation, let alone compromise, collaboration, and collegiality.

Leave aside whether the passing of judgment is correct, because for sure it is a good thing to feel strongly about an issue and to be upset when people in power act against what we see as progress on that issue, so let me give folks the benefit of the doubt and say that when they believe about an issue is righteous and that they're feeling angry is appropriate. Let us also assume that folks who raise their voice do so out of a genuine concern for themselves, others, and society, and a commitment to see the hard work through to make progress, rather than grandstanding to look good or feel good with no regard for connecting with the people or issue in question.

With all those caveats in place, I want to say that I feel strongly that in our democratic society, "the other side" is a group of people who deserve our recognition of their humanity and voice, not to be shot down figuratively or literally. And, as an elected official like my colleague, "the other side" is a group that must be recognized, cultivated, and worked with, if that elected body is to get anything of substance done. The alternative, which I don't think we're close to but I will say I'm starting to worry about, is that public discourse devolves into making and winning arguments through violence, and that the ebb and flow of democratic government consisting of more than one political party gives way to one side dominating and then power lurching over to the other side to dominate next.

If you're a politically active young person or a parent raising one, hats off to you. I hope you'll see the commitment and openness of my colleague as a good thing to be emulated and not a cowardly thing to be denounced. I certainly hope more of our electeds, and citizens in general, are more like her.