WHAT I LEARNED FROM POLITICS

What you see depends on where you sit. An issue that seems very straightforward and obvious to you, might be seen in an entirely different light by colleagues in a different political caucus, from a different part of the state or whose neighborhood looks different than yours. Thus, it's important to try to listen and understand what your colleagues, your "enemies" and what different groups say and think on the topic. Sometimes understanding the different perspectives helps you craft a solution that is acceptable--if not entirely supported--by all.

By way of example, some years ago in the PA General Assembly, we on the Transportation Committee knew we had the most deficient bridges in the nation and we did not want one to fall down during rush hour killing the hapless commuters trying to get to work. We all knew that it would take money to fix them and to add improvements to our roads, highways and mass transit systems so they could meet the challenges of keeping the traffic moving in an increasingly congested environment.

Some of my colleagues refused to consider adding to the gas tax for any reason or in any amount, despite support from the Chambers of Commerce (gotta get the goods to market and time is money) and many other groups, and assurances that the PA Constitution forbids spending gas tax revenues on anything other than roads and bridges. Many repeated the mantra that a higher gas tax makes everybody mad since everybody pays it. Others, representing communities that depended heavily on mass transit (which cannot pay for itself entirely) wanted their needs considered as well. Still others represented rural communities who frequently drove many miles and for whom adding even a cent to the gas tax would cause political problems. At the end of the day, the package we cobbled together had more money for rural dirt and gravel roads, more money from other sources for mass transit, and still made a huge infusion into fixing our bridges and improving our roads with gas taxes.

In this case, "making sausage" was a matter of understanding how the issue looked to others and listening to what ingredients made the dish more palatable to enough legislators to gain a majority vote.