Different seats, same problems

The phrase “form follows function” was first coined by American architect Louis Sullivan.

He applied it to skyscrapers and buildings, but Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., is hoping to use a similar idea to build bipartisan cooperation in Congress.

Last week, Sen. Udall authored an open letter to congressional leaders proposing a novel idea — that at the State of the Union address later this month, members of Congress should sit alongside their ideological opposites instead of the traditional segregation of Democrats on one side of the aisle and Republicans on the other.
In his letter, Udall wrote, “Perhaps by sitting with each other for one night we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here ... to serve the public good.”

Perhaps. But probably not.

True, a break from what has become an annual circus of one party sycophantically standing and clapping while the other sits solemn-faced in brassy disapproval is not a bad idea.

But even if the parties sit side-by-side, it’s naive to think that such a purely symbolic act might have any real implications when the 112th Congress returns to work the next morning. It is only a symbol of bipartisanship for the cameras — sitting next to someone for 90 minutes does not magically reconcile ideological differences.

Perhaps the most disheartening part of this potentially “important, new tradition,” as Udall called the seating arrangement, is the fact that it took a third party to conceive of the idea in the first place.

The suggestion was prompted by another letter written by Jonathan Cowan, president of D.C. think tank Third Way.

In Cowan’s original letter, inspired by the recent tragedies in Tucson, Ariz., he proposed a tripartite plan for the two parties to come together.

The seating arrangement is by far the least of these; the other two suggestions include organizing a bipartisan retreat for party members to discuss policies with each other in a private forum and a congressional member exchange program of sorts that would enable representatives from opposing parties to visit one another’s districts together.
These latter ideas might actually facilitate discussion, but they require actual commitment.

Thus, while Udall’s letter to Congress may seem noble, moving 30 feet across the room is actually just the easiest suggestion, both politically and logistically, to accomplish.

The implications are discouraging.

Instead of an inspiring symbol heralding a new era of bipartisanship, Udall’s plan to play congressional musical chairs simply highlights how unwilling Congress is to truly work on extending the hand of friendship across the aisle — even if the aisle no longer exists.

Symbolic gestures are not enough any more. After all, when a machine has ceased to function, its form hardly matters.


E-mail: mebinder@indiana.edu