Legislator or agitator: Pick one. You cannot be both.

 It happened again this week.  In the Montana State House, Rep. Zooey Zephyr was barred from the floor of the legislature during the debate of a bill.  The coverage of the incident did not always make it clear what happened, which I find frustrating.  Clickbait stories about a transgender representative barred from the floor of the Montana State House aren't really clickbait if they give in-depth analysis of the story itself.  The headline is the point, and the headline without the analysis is less than fully informative, while also providing some interesting observations about developing patterns for those who follow state legislatures.

It was not all that difficult to find out what happened, but any news story covering Zephyr's floor speech should have covered the full events.  The way to distinguish clickbait from real news coverage is whether or not the news source actually described the full events.  Here is the story.  Montana was debating legislation that would have prohibited hormone replacement and surgical transition procedures for those under 18.  Rep. Zephyr is transgender, and gave a speech accusing sponsors and supporters of the legislation within the chamber of having "blood on their hands," which can be interpreted as a violation of decorum.  Zephyr also attempted to lead those in the gallery in a chant, disrupting the legislative session.

Articles that focused on Zephyr being transgender omitted, in particular, that last detail, but it was critical to the State House's decision.  Did the House carry out an unnecessarily harsh punishment?  That is something one can debate, but one cannot have that debate without the full context of Zephyr's actions.

Zephyr was not simply making a speech, nor breaching decorum with an accusation.  Rather, Rep. Zephyr was attempting to disrupt the legislative session itself.  In Tennessee, several state legislators went past speeches, debate, amendment, and voting, and attempted to disrupt a legislative session.

Note that I have taken no position on any legislation.  Go through the text of what I have written with the finest of fine-toothed combs.  You won't find such a position.  I am making an observation.  Actually, it is an observation that comes from my first book, Hiring and Firing Public Officials:  Rethinking the Purpose of Elections.

Elections are hiring mechanisms.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  The job of serving in a legislature is a job.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  What are the responsibilities of that job?  The job of a legislator has many tasks, as does nearly any job.  The primary job is to write and attempt to pass legislation, or oppose the legislation written by others.  That process is a complex one, governed by a chamber's rules.

Of course, there are other tasks, including constituency service and oversight, but law-writin' is a-what we're a-talkin' 'bout.  These incidents-- Tennessee, then Montana-- are about how legislators engage in the process of lawmaking.  You state your case, you cast your vote, and that is that.  When you go beyond that and attempt to disrupt the process, you cross the line from the job of legislator to agitator disrupting the process.

You cannot be both legislator and agitator.  If you wish to be an activist, an agitator, a protestor, a leader of chants and speeches and shouts for a cause you believe is just and right, we have a glorious thing in this country.  Perhaps the most glorious thing ever conceived by man.  The first fuckin' amendment.

But that is not the job of the legislator.

How should a legislature respond to procedural sabotage?  Debate amongst yourselves.  I take no position on that, having never really had cause to think about it.  Until now.

But when you vote, you are hiring or firing a legislator.  Not an agitator.  Agitators are a dime a dozen.

Do you know why it is so much harder to be a legislator?  You have to accept that the votes will be counted, and when you find yourself on the 50%-1 side, you have to accept that you lost, because them's the rules.  If you can't do that, you have no business in a legislature.

Post-script.  I started writing this with no intention of connecting it to the dumpster fire that is the Political Science Department at Case Western Reserve University, nor Professor Peter Moore, but writing is a funny thing.  I never divulged the precise circumstances in which he threatened me, nor will I now.  To do so would cause problems for others unnecessarily.  Yet the context, in broad strokes, was as follows.  I stated a position in a "legislative" matter, and Pete Moore didn't want to engage on the substance.  So he blew up the process, going so far as to threaten me.

State your case.  Cast your vote.  Maybe you win, maybe you lose, but if you can't handle that, you don't belong at the table.  If you would rather go be an agitator, go be an agitator.  I have no patience for agitators.  They aren't the ones who solve problems.

This morning is an opportunity for the greatest musical genius in human history, Miles Davis.  "Agitation," from ESP.