What happens when compromise steps down, too?

This post originally appeared in the Puget Sound Business Journal’s “Wright on Center” column on March 11, 2019.

It wasn’t long ago when we derided the “Seattle Process,” jokingly referring to the machinations of public hearings that allowed our city to grow slowly and surely into the world-class city it’s become.

Recently we’ve adopted a greater sense of urgency to confront pressing challenges like transportation, housing affordability, and homelessness. While we continue to act with urgency, we must also remember to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that compromise is progress.

A cascade of new city programs, policies, taxes, and regulations have understandably overwhelmed many residents into thinking that our problems ought to be fixed by now. Seattle City Council’s urgency in passing and implementing many of these solutions has trickled into discussions of their effectiveness. It’s made it harder for supporters of any new city decision to ask for patience in rendering judgment; it has made the jobs of critics easier.

As a result, we are sometimes less pragmatic in our approach to difficult challenges. In those cases, our willingness to do the hard work to find common ground has been replaced by a my-way-or-the-highway attitude that’s obstreperous.

For the past couple of years, the council had the unenviable position as the lightning rod for the city’s responses to these challenges. Members have proposed both near and long-term solutions to our city’s chronic homelessness. They’ve taken heat from neighbors and residents in various districts and from activists and businesses across the city for their positions. However, if the passage of a $15-per-hour minimum wage taught us anything, it’s that the best outcomes result from opposing sides getting together to hammer out a solution. 

Public hearings and boisterous town halls are an unfortunate part of the job of an elected official. I worry that the tone and tenor are scaring off exactly whom we should hope stick around on the council.

The recent spate of council retirement announcements is concerning because it represents the loss of members who weren’t afraid of shepherding the push and pull from both sides that often yields effective public policy. This trait — the willingness to listen, to search for compromise even if it’s hard to find — is seemingly becoming a lost art.

The politics of the rest of the country have spread to our corner of America. Consider, some of the most recent big stories. Trump shuts down the government; strident critics force Amazon’s hand to walk away from New York. Right or wrong, these actions are indicative of a larger pattern; one where people celebrate condemnation, defensiveness, and intractability.

The more we lose council members who are willing to be upfront and engaged with those who disagree, the more fragmented our body politic will become. Trenches will be dug deeper. New leaders with no incentive to listen and engage with their opposition will rise from them. Good ideas might not see the light of day. Good people might avoid politics altogether.

Imagine a scenario next year where the council, whose senior member will be a socialist firebrand, is comprised mostly of go-it-alone types unwilling to listen and engage with anyone who disagrees.

Good managers often tell their teams to assume good intent, that we don't have to always see eye to eye. The willingness to look each other in the eyes, though — to be forthright, respectful, and patient — is central to a healthy discussion in city hall or the boardroom.

People talk a lot about the character of a neighborhood. I care as much about the character of our people and the ability to create meaningful and lasting change for the good of our city.