2 ms·
Their job is to, in the most literal sense possible, create public documents that govern. There isn't a world where I see it as a positive that legislators can
by bmitc 4y ago
Their job is to, in the most literal sense possible, create public documents that govern. There isn't a world where I see it as a positive that legislators can further bury their actions and communications behind veils of secrecy while the government has the utmost access to our communications.
> I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations.
This really does not make any sense. You seem to be arguing for less polarized discourse, but I cannot see how that is accomplished by hiding discourse. By hiding it, you create little pockets of extremism, not to mention opening up the doors for illegal and traitorous behavior.
Politicians can speak freely right now. What they want to do is further game the system, and I'm not sure how you can interpret these actions as otherwise.
> I'll judge them on the end result
You can already do that, and in Arizona, the end results don't look so good. Arizona, despite having a lot of potential and having beautiful natural landscape, seems to be consistently listed as one of the worst states to live in. Even the mere fact of Arizona being livable in the coming century is debatable due to climate change.
- Idk__Throwaway 4y agoI imagine what they mean is that any time a politician speaks, they must adjust what they say to agree with core voter demographic if they want re-election. Perhaps if they spoke privately they could concede on certain topics and reach a middle ground, then plan a way for each to explain the compromise to their voters. In a public forum people would likely view the compromise as one or both politicians "losing" and a mixture of ego and fear of not getting re-elected would prevent either party from giving ground and taking more measured approach.