[rhcom2]

I always felt like Congressional debates should begin with each side trying to explain the opposing position, with debate only beginning when each side agrees with the opposition's framing of their PoV. I also recognize how naive and idealistic this sounds.

[nradov]

The public Congressional debates are performative, intended to curry favor with key voters, campaign donors, and media personalities. The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric. This is mostly fine in that it allows for policy decisions to move forward with compromises. The problem is that some members of Congress are unable to shut off their deranged public personas even in private back room negotiations.

[bigbadfeline]

> The public Congressional debates are performative, > The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric.

If we can't hear the substantive debates, voting becomes meaningless and performative too. Are we supposed to believe that we vote better when we don't know the truth?

> This is mostly fine

Is it?

[rhcom2]

While I accept that this is how it is done in practice, I think the unintended consequence is it raises the partisan temperature and further ruins the already abysmal trust of Congress.

[deaux]

Was this the case from day 1 in the US?

How about day 1 in Ancient Greece? Or the French Republic?

One for our political historians. I'm sure you can stretch anywhere into "yes" or "no", but what do the relative degrees look like?