A recent
Seattle Times Op-Ed argued that "purity politics" in the state Legislature gets in the way of progress. But what some call "rigidity" is, for many people, a necessary moral line to protect the vulnerable and help those who are struggling. The editorial says compromise is always the highest virtue in government, but this misses a key point: compromise is not neutral when people’s lives are at stake.
First, there’s an idea that refusing to compromise slows progress. But today, so-called "middle-ground" solutions often don’t really fix big problems like housing, health care, or poverty. Lawmakers who hold firm on certain issues do so because they know it will water down bills that provide assistance or rights to certain people. Whether because they fundamentally oppose government programs that assist people, or because they don’t honor the humanity of the people in question, the end result of compromising with them is leaving people behind.
For example, if a housing bill compromise keeps thousands of families at risk of eviction, or a budget deal protects tax breaks for the wealthy while shortchanging people with disabilities, that’s not "pragmatism." That’s a choice to let poverty continue. For people working hard to get by in Washington, a "bipartisan win" that doesn’t lower their cost of living isn’t really a win. Lawmakers should set clear limits when a deal leaves their communities struggling. Real leadership isn’t just about finding a number everyone can accept. It’s about making sure the outcome truly helps those in need.
The editorial also overlooks how harmful rhetoric not only damages the lawmaking process but also erodes the public’s trust in the system. Democracy depends on respect and basic decency, but sometimes lawmakers use destructive, hateful language. For example, during the past legislative session, one lawmaker said on the House floor that some people “belong in the junk drawer” while debating DEI policies. This enraged many of his colleagues and left them questioning whether they could work with him anymore.
When we’re told to "work across the aisle" with people who use hateful language, we’re being asked to accept that hate as normal. There has to be a line. Refusing to work with someone who denies others’ humanity isn’t "purity politics"; it’s standing up against bigotry. Treating hateful speech as just another opinion sends the message that some people’s dignity is up for debate.
Working together in government only works if there’s respect and honesty. When hateful words target vulnerable people, it’s the person using those words who destroys any chance for compromise, not those who refuse to go along with it. Standing up to this behavior is simply the right thing to do and helps make sure all people in Washington are treated with dignity.
In the end, politics isn’t about keeping everyone comfortable. It’s about doing what’s right. If being "civil" means ignoring suffering or cooperating with those who insult our neighbors, that’s too high a price. Don’t fear a tough debate. Fear a legislature more interested in peace and pleasantries than in keeping people housed, fed, and respected. Drawing the line isn’t about purity. It’s about decency and the guts to stand up for people when it matters most.
