We all know there is a problem with our political system. At a time when we have a myriad of serious challenges facing our country, Congress — aside from the occasional bill, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — seems incapable of addressing challenges facing the country beyond using extraordinary and limited measures such as the budget reconciliation process.
A great deal of discussion and thought have occurred, and ideas have been suggested, in the debate about how we can address this situation.
The consequence of congressional gridlock is that even ideas strongly supported by the public that address challenges facing the country, such as climate change, health care or immigration, fail to move forward because our political parties can’t work together. Instead, they oppose and criticize the other’s solutions and loudly say that the true answer is to resist, work to grind the agenda to a halt and go to the next election to change control of government. To make matters worse, in these calls for electoral victory, infighting has erupted with calls to oppose their own party members if they are not seen as sufficiently loyal, sometimes threatening to “primary” them for lack of fealty to the party. This dynamic is not confined to either party.
This is not about partisanship; our system always has been partisan. This is about tolerance for the other. Our politicians and parties seem to have lost their ability to work together for the benefit of the country. In political debate, you can hear this language of intolerance and see the consequences of it every day. A report by the Former Members of Congress Association describes the situation: “Congress has largely become a dysfunctional institution unable to meet the critical needs of our country.” It goes on to point the way forward: “But solutions in a nation as complex as ours require collaboration, thoughtful debate, an exchange of ideas, rather than a clash of talking points, and a foundation of trust between colleagues.”
So, how do we get to an era of collaboration, thoughtful debate and an exchange of ideas and trust?
Many ideas have been put forth to address this dynamic: term limits, campaign finance reform and changes to how congressional districts are drawn every 10 years. Even under the best of circumstances none of these proposals would be easy to pass and become law. They all would take time, effort and enormous political will. Under the current circumstances of intolerance for the other, none seems remotely achievable.
However, there is one idea that just might work. It is based on the simple principle of “You can’t understand someone until you walk a mile in their shoes.”
The report by the Former Members Association says we need “more and not less in-person interaction among members of Congress. They need to learn more about each other’s districts, hold civil conversations aimed at finding common ground, and build relationships of trust that can lead to understanding and solutions.”
What if Congress created a program that paired one member of a party with someone from the other party, and required and paid for those members to attend and fully participate in in-person town halls in the other district/state? The matches could be made with guidelines, i.e., number of times per year, rural members with urban, geographic distance, chairman with chairman, and leaders with leaders. This would give members a real chance to “walk a mile in the other’s shoes,” and force them to spend time together and learn about the world outside their own politically reinforced and curated views.
Imagine Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) participating in a town hall in Harlem with Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and vice versa; or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) participating in a town hall with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.); or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) doing so with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). With both the Senate and House so evenly divided, creating such matchups would not be difficult.
Many members would dismiss the idea as trivial, naive or a waste of time. These would be sure signs that they fear the idea. As the maxim describes, this idea would put members well outside their comfort zones — and that’s the point.
This would not immediately fix the problems facing Congress and its culture. It would take time, but the more that members interact with one another, outside of their usual groups, the more difficult it would be to direct vitriol and hate toward the other and, in turn, toward the public. We can’t get rid of Twitter, Facebook, Parlor, YouTube or any other social media platform used to direct overheated, hateful and intolerant rhetoric toward others. But we can take a small step toward promoting tolerance by making members of Congress “break bread” together and to “walk a mile” in each other’s shoes.
Maybe it’s worth a try. After all, nothing else seems to have worked. The cost would be low, but the benefit would be high.
William Pierce, senior director of APCO Worldwide, has worked for more than 30 years in Washington, for two members of Congress and as a political appointee in the Bush administration. He is an adjunct professor at The Johns Hopkins University Advanced Academic Program. Follow him on Twitter @WilliamAPierce.