It is hard to
debate against those we like. Maybe we see harm in a piece of
legislation that they don’t see. Maybe the harm they see of not passing
it is out-weighed by the harm we see in passing it. But we disagree and
we have to debate, maybe even with some vigor. Maybe we are in our
same party, maybe not. But we are friends. We have shared meals or
conversation, stories of our lives and families. And today we have
different positions and we each have to fight them, advocate for those
we are standing for, who we represent.
We all try not to take it
personally but the words said in debate are hard to hear sometimes,
especially when you have legislators who lose if a bill passes and
others who gain politically, in terms credibility with constituents or
real policy that is part of their life’s work. Tomorrow we all have to
rearrange ourselves into other alliances and coalitions, so, rather
than taking the fight off the floor, we all as seasoned lawmakers in
the end of our two year terms, we know to leave the heat there in the
big black seats in front of the lap top computer screens, go to lunch,
go home, let it rest until it is less raw.
There is a line in debate we
have to be careful not to cross, that is in characterizing another’s
intent, or speaking poorly of their efforts or integrity. There are
unspoken rules about this. When a line is crossed, a legislator is seen
to have an edge that I think makes many dread having that person debate
on the floor. It takes a while to learn that, to see how it works. Its
part of fair play that you are careful. At the same time, in an
election year, making partisan contrasts, claiming better moral high
ground for a position on an issue that falls largely on party lines, is
a role many of us are supposed to take. But it is a delicate balance to
do that with in the rules. This time of year you can watch us walk that
line, delicately or not.
debate against those we like. Maybe we see harm in a piece of
legislation that they don’t see. Maybe the harm they see of not passing
it is out-weighed by the harm we see in passing it. But we disagree and
we have to debate, maybe even with some vigor. Maybe we are in our
same party, maybe not. But we are friends. We have shared meals or
conversation, stories of our lives and families. And today we have
different positions and we each have to fight them, advocate for those
we are standing for, who we represent.
We all try not to take it
personally but the words said in debate are hard to hear sometimes,
especially when you have legislators who lose if a bill passes and
others who gain politically, in terms credibility with constituents or
real policy that is part of their life’s work. Tomorrow we all have to
rearrange ourselves into other alliances and coalitions, so, rather
than taking the fight off the floor, we all as seasoned lawmakers in
the end of our two year terms, we know to leave the heat there in the
big black seats in front of the lap top computer screens, go to lunch,
go home, let it rest until it is less raw.
There is a line in debate we
have to be careful not to cross, that is in characterizing another’s
intent, or speaking poorly of their efforts or integrity. There are
unspoken rules about this. When a line is crossed, a legislator is seen
to have an edge that I think makes many dread having that person debate
on the floor. It takes a while to learn that, to see how it works. Its
part of fair play that you are careful. At the same time, in an
election year, making partisan contrasts, claiming better moral high
ground for a position on an issue that falls largely on party lines, is
a role many of us are supposed to take. But it is a delicate balance to
do that with in the rules. This time of year you can watch us walk that
line, delicately or not.