Guest columnist
Legislative progress possible if we 'risk' civil discourse

By Fred Jarrett
Special to The Times

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES Right after last year's vote passing the gas-tax increase to fund the transportation bill, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, left, key architect of the proposal, is hugged by fellow senators.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The election is over and I suppose the good news is that we survived.

The bad news is that the tone and tenor of some campaigns have the potential of spilling over into the upcoming legislative session and becoming an impediment to progress.

I am not politically naïve. I understand how politics works. This was my ninth election campaign and I am a longtime student of political history.

Campaigns are a contact sport and many in our history have been worse than the one we just came through. One reason George Washington established the two-term tradition was the constant political attack on his character and actions. His presidency ended as the Federalists, led by John Adams, and the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, savagely attacked one another, first in the election of 1796 and again in 1800.

The campaigns of 2004 weren't the worst in our history, but they could well have the harshest impact in recent history on our ability to govern.

Take, for example, the hit pieces on Democrats in our Legislature who supported a very modest 5-cent gas-tax increase. The attack ads exaggerated the effect of the tax by using multiyear totals and implied it was a general tax increase. The pieces accused the targeted legislators of failing to represent their constituents' interests.

So, what's the problem? Don't parties and candidates have an obligation to expose the votes of sitting legislators? And, even if overly simplified, don't the ads make a fair point about raising taxes?

Here's what's wrong: The people who launched these attacks were, in many cases, the same people — Republican House and Senate leaders — who made the case in support of the effort to pass the gas-tax increase. In fact, several Republican legislators in the targeted districts voted for the gas-tax increase.

During the 2003 session, both Republican and Democratic leaders asserted to lawmakers, who ended up on the receiving end of these attacks, that our state's economy depended on increased investment in transportation. And as occasionally happens, the bipartisan leadership of the Legislature agreed the gas tax should not be a partisan issue. Without that agreement, no tax could have passed.

Now that the hit pieces have run, how will the Legislature establish the level of trust needed to have an honest and candid discussion on issues, develop a consensus and achieve positive results?

Leadership requires elected officials to take risks, and to go beyond safe political bromides. But elected representatives aren't going to commit political suicide, either.

In the past, notions of civility and respect for the office, if not the officeholder, allowed bipartisan agreements to be reached on important issues.

Twisting those agreements into weapons of political destruction has the potential of turning legislators into risk-averse placeholders.

There are no easy answers. Negative politics works all too often.

In my campaign, I chose to focus on issues my constituents care about and to treat my opponent with respect. The number of people who noticed and commented on that choice was encouraging. In fact, as the hit pieces from Democrats on my supposed lack of independence from the House Republican leadership began to arrive in mailboxes, constituents who were offended by them began to send contributions and ask how they could volunteer in my campaign.

During the last week of the campaign, a reception was held for Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, one of the Senate's architects of the gas-tax increase who was targeted by my party.

I know of only two legislators who came, Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle, and myself.

I felt a need to be there: to take that step toward reconciliation — and to demonstrate I would take a risk to resume civil discourse.

Rep. Fred Jarrett, R-Mercer Island, holds the 41st District's Position 1 in the Washington House of Representatives.