A house literally divided

At a forum last month, five Colorado governors (one present and four past) expressed concern about the present polarization of our democracy. The solution, in my humble opinion, has been out there for 50 years. It has not been used because our elected senators and representatives do not want to use it.

Around a half-century ago, Rufus E. Miles, a federal official in the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, saw the developing crisis in the U.S. Congress. His idea has been called Miles’ Law and states: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” The organization of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — with one party together on one side of the aisle, and the other together on the other side — leads to the polarization of “us” versus “them” between the two major parties.

That each party develops thinking that their own side is “right” and the other side is “wrong” is a classic dichotomy that goes back to tribal societies and is a natural development of opposed groups. “Groupthink” may progress into “true believer” and then that group becomes inflexible — this develops in both groups who use it to get re-elected, and point to “those guys across the aisle” as the scapegoat for Congress not getting the needed work done. Each party does this.

This separation “across the aisle” reduces personal contact with members of the other party, so really prevents each member from getting to personally know members of the other party. Miles’ solution, as I understand it, is to have members of their respective bodies have alternate seating of members of the two parties. Each year a lottery determines who sits beside who — alternating parties.

This seating would result in the opportunity to get to know a member or two of the opposing party. Such personal contact provides a real chance to develop friendship and thereby to better understand the others viewpoints. Presently each party has a scapegoat to blame for failures — it’s always the other party “across the aisle.” Alternate seating would make the aisle obsolete, and make individual members responsible, as they should be, for the results of legislative decisions.

This last point is why politicians do not do this already. When they run for reelection they have the scapegoat to point to and blame — it’s always “across the aisle.” Recently we saw a Colorado senator praise Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Senate, but then when it came time to vote, he voted with his tribe against the nominee. The “us” vs “them” won out again over the good qualities of Judge Gorsuch. Miles’ Law: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

We voters ultimately have the power to correct the “across the aisle” status — if we all would just rise up and confront our elected officials and deny our votes to anyone who will not adjust to Miles’ suggestions. The politicians won’t do it themselves — that’s been proven. They all would rather have the scapegoat for their own failure.

Jarvis D. Ryals is a retired neurologist. He lives in Pueblo.