Mathematics

Here’s an equation:

Democratic-controlled Senate + Democratic-controlled House + Republican White House = not much happening.

Call me pessimistic, defeatist, cynical, fatalistic, negative…choose your favorite adjective. I despair of partisan politics, which seems to be standard operating procedure in Washington. Perhaps because the other party is so “wrong,” perhaps because of party pressure, or perhaps out of fear of losing re-election, members of both major parties generally stick to their platforms. I think this is an abysmal problem-solving system, and experience has shown me that it can be different.

First, a little information to clarify my position. Because of partisan politics, I am registered as Independent; I have been since I first signed up at 18. I’m also a former public school teacher, and I served on the district contract negotiating team a few times.

How is that relevant? With a little imagination, I think you can see that negotiating an employment contract is a lot like working in politics. You have controversial topics (health benefits, pay, work schedule) and parties (teachers, administrators, school board) with differing positions. I worked in a poor district with a lot of problems, but, in each case, we settled our contract within a week.

No magic, no threats, little money…how was it done? By using a cooperative style of negotiations sometimes known as integrative bargaining. Each party comes to the table with its concerns and relates them. Then, with the assistance of facilitators, the entire group creates a list of shared problems. Ok, so the teachers want more money, and the school board doesn’t want to raise taxes…so salary is a problem. Teachers want time to work with each other, but released time is an issue for the administrators…so scheduling is a problem…and so on. As a team, we generate solutions while considering all points of view, and we don’t stop until we reach a decision that everyone can live with.

This wasn’t easy, not by a long shot. Before beginning negotiations, there was extensive team-building and procedural training all members had to attend. Still, trust issues arose. It also was sometimes very difficult to let go of the connections to our “parties” and just think about the good of the school district. We also made some decisions that, in retrospect, we regretted. But I do believe the contracts were fair, there was little animosity generated, and the process did not drag out for months as it can in traditional negotiations.

I think our leaders in Washington should adopt a similar process. No matter what you think about an issue (e. g., the Iraq war, immigration, universal health care), it is a problem, and you have a stake in the outcome. If we could look at concerns in a broader context, I think there’d be more agreement, and perhaps a more satisfying solution could be reached. For instance, most people are either pro-life or pro-choice; that indicates that abortion is an issue. That does not indicate, however, that the only solutions are total ban or total freedom. Nor does it indicate that the best compromise is in the dead center of the two extremes. I’d like lawmakers to look at problems of Americans, not Republicans or Democrats.

Look, I know I’m asking a lot. There is a tremendous amount of past practice and history keeping the status quo…not to mention a few trust issues. But try to imagine the amount of animosity that can fester among teachers, administrators, and school board members. We overcame that tradition, and for a few shining years, developed something shared, functional, and respected.

I’ve since left that district. I’ve heard through the grapevine that they no longer use integrative bargaining; they went back to traditional oppositional negotiations. I was really disappointed to hear that; I wonder what the catalyst was for that decision. I suspect that it was human frailty: greed, mistrust, suspicion…in my opinion, not a stance from which to start negations. But that’s where my former school district is now….and that’s where we are in our federal government.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan


6 Responses to “Mathematics

  • 1
    Rick
    January 6th, 2007 21:02

    Susan,

    I used to believe that the two-party system was the correct approach, until I realized that there were issues where I did not agree with either party, either in principle or approach.

    My first question is: well, isn’t that why elected these guys in the first place, in order to negotiate on our behalf? Yes, but you prove it isn’t working.

    My second question is: what’s wrong with having more than two options, especially if you believe that neither two-party option is really an option at all?

    I think we limit our own opportunities by exclusively aligning ourselves with Democrats or Republicans.

  • 2
    Susan
    January 9th, 2007 10:11

    Hi Rick-

    I’m thinking that it’s time to move past the 2 party system. I understand the theory behind it, but it doesn’t seem to be doing its job now. Far too often it seems we have the “us against them” mentality instead of “let’s fix the problem.”

    In our state I’m left out of the primaries because I’m not aligned with a party, and I miss having a say there, but there’s no group I want to join. While I tend to side with Democrats on most issues, I generally dislike their approach to politics, which I find very similar to Republicans. None of the smaller parties, so far, have captured my attention enough to lure me in…

    I’m very interested in what will (or won’t) happen now that Congress and the White House are on “opposing sides.” (n.b.- I don’t like saying “opposing sides,” but that seems to describe it better than “different parties.”) I don’t have high hopes, but I’d love to be surprised.

    Be brave. Be human.
    Susan

  • 3
    Scott
    January 30th, 2007 13:18

    I think the math may be a bit off.

    Dem house + Dem senate + Boosh Whitehouse ~= Dem sweep.

    Jorge Boosh is such a beggar for approval that he’ll do whatever it takes.

    People used to complain about Clinton leading by polls. Boosh is at least as bad in his trying to appeal to the “center.”

    It’s time to give up on the two-party system because there are no longer two parties.

  • 4
    Brian
    January 30th, 2007 13:58

    Scott,

    Welcome to the site, and thanks for your helpful references on my recent article.

    If I may make one suggestion, I’d like for people to refrain from purposely misspelling names and words. Using “Jorge Boosh” instead of “George Bush”, or “BuyBull” instead of “Bible”, etc. serve simply to offend those of differing opinions. If we are going to make BraveHumans a place for mutual discussion, we are going to offend each other enough without adding flames to the fire.

    Brian

  • 5
    Scott
    January 30th, 2007 15:42

    Gotcha Brian. My apologies. I was trying to convey my opinion in a somewhat humorous way, but I understand and will refrain from so doing.

  • 6
    Brian
    January 30th, 2007 17:55

    Thanks, Scott.



Leave a Reply

Remember: Comments are part of a discussion. Speak your mind, but be kind.

Close
E-mail It