I like George Latimer. I like Mike Lawler.
Both are serious and talented public servants, and both understand that politics involves talking to, engaging with, and sometimes compromising with people who disagree with you. So, I was excited when I heard that the two were going to meet in Tarrytown at the Shames Jewish Community Center to discuss “Navigating Global Challenges Across the Aisle.” I, along with 1,300 others, registered to attend the event on June 9 to hear the two exchange ideas on foreign policy.
It looked like a perfect topic, since both congressmen sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Tarrytown was the perfect location, since each congressman represents part of the municipality. The location solved a problem, since there seems to be an unwritten rule among congressional representatives that they will not appear on another representative’s turf. It is a Sharks and Jets thing, I guess. The location would make it a home game for both.
Both men can hold their own in a debate, as they are talented orators. But I suspect that when it comes to foreign policy, there is a good bit of common ground between the two Hudson Valley politicians. I also suspect the format would have led to a very civil and orderly discussion, especially compared with many of the raucous town halls that have been held throughout the area.
But sadly, a groundswell of progressive outrage caused Latimer to cancel his appearance. Democrats were urged to “Please call George Latimer’s office today to urge him to cancel his joint appearance on Sunday with Mike Lawler,” fearing that the joint appearance would somehow boost Lawler’s chances for re-election.
From a purely partisan perspective, I get it. But sometimes we need to put the purely partisan aside in favor of civility and good government.
In canceling his appearance at the sold-out event, Latimer said, “It is clear that the climate for an informed and serious discussion on matters of Federal policy is not possible in the current moment; we can have a more substantive conversation after this year’s elections are complete.”
Disappointing. Doesn’t the current moment require serious discussion?
The problem is not one politician or one party. The real problem is that, increasingly, activists on both sides of the aisle look at any discussion, cooperation, or compromise as a betrayal.
Lawler’s district is one of the few toss-up districts and will be closely watched. Latimer’s district, on the other hand, is non-competitive. His opponent has no social media presence and does not have a website. So, it would seem he could take the risk of reaching across the aisle.
Highlighting common ground does not mean surrender. It means the person across the aisle from you may be wrong but is not automatically evil. They are worth talking to and engaging with. It models the behavior that we need more of in this country from all citizens.
As we celebrate the 250th birthday of America, it is worth reflecting on the aspirations of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Constitution itself is a compromise machine that demands civil discourse and common ground. If our politicians cannot sit in the same room in their districts and swap ideas, have we missed the lesson?
Town halls matter because elected officials should hear from the people they represent, civilly, one hopes, which is another challenge. But a bipartisan forum with congressional members from opposite sides of the aisle matters for a different reason. It shows that disagreement does not need to mean contempt. It shows that it is possible to work together.
With congressional approval ratings painfully low, we could use a little bit more of that.
What a great birthday present it would be to America to relearn how to sit in the same room and have a civil conversation.