photo by: Shutterstock

The Kansas Capitol is shown in this file photo.

The elections were a one-sided affair. What happens next shouldn’t be.

Instead, Democrats and Republicans should come together, look each other deeply in the eyes and say the three little words that time eternal has proven to be the glue that holds together important relationships.

You were right.

What three little words did you think I was going to say? Come on, Congress is not a rom-com. It only fits half of that billing. No, Democrats and Republicans don’t have to love each other, but it would be nice if they realized they are in an actual relationship to run this country rather than a conflict to dominate the other.

A good start would be to utter those three words: You were right. But, both sides must say it. How would it work? Here’s one example of how it could work.

Immigration. You were right, the border needs more security. The idea of a wall, whether an actual physical barrier or a technological one, wasn’t stupid. In a country where so many people want to come, it doesn’t make sense to just let people walk across the border.

You were right, we need immigrants to make America’s economy work. Foreign labor is not going to take all the jobs from Americans, especially in a country that already has an unemployment rate of about 4%. Instead, the more realistic fear is that we’ll continue to lose entire industries to other countries because we can’t provide enough workers.

Of all the national topics, immigration is the one I think is most ripe for a relationship-based compromise. Voters have sent strong messages the last two elections. Border security was a big part of the Republicans’ electoral success in the presidential election. But in this most recent election cycle there was ample evidence of those same border-minded voters recognizing deportation efforts had gone too far, damaging both good families and good American businesses.

But so far, our loving conversation based on those three little words has avoided the hottest three-letter word in America: ICE. Instead of leading with “you were right,” this conversation easily could begin with “you were wrong.” It would be 100% accurate when describing the culture and training of ICE that led to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

It is kind of amazing how little those two names came up in this election cycle. I don’t personally remember a campaign ad that mentioned them. In one regard, that’s a shame. Good and Pretti deserve to be remembered. They deserve justice.

However, if you start this conversation with abolishing ICE and labeling people murders, you aren’t likely to end the conversation with a handshake and a deal. Focusing on a deal that increases security on the border and increases the number of legal immigrants that can enter the country each year is the right way to start. When negotiations begin on that deal, talks can turn to meaningful reforms regarding ICE, including when its agents will face criminal liability. But such a strategy is going to take patience and restraint on the part of Democrats. Good and Pretti can best be served justice by Congress through a deal that truly improves the immigration system.

While I think immigration is the topic best positioned for such a compromise, there may be others. Here are a few quick examples.

• Ukraine. You are right, Ukraine is not going to get all of its land back. You are right, Russia shouldn’t get an additional inch of European soil.

• Iran. You are right, Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. You are right, we are not going to create regime change in Iran.

• Israel. You are right, Hamas is a despicable agent of terror. You are right, Netanyahu is a lousy partner.

• Artificial intelligence. You are right, AI can be incredibly dangerous. You are right, America could lose its place as the world’s economic leader if we fall behind.

I’m not sure both sides are going to be able to utter those three words on each of those topics. I’ve also struggled to come up with what a realistic equivalent would be for such a conversation between Kansas Democrats and Republicans. For instance, I’m not sensing such compromise on abortion or Medicaid expansion. Maybe there is some common ground to be found on education. The Republican nominee for governor made improving literacy a platform of his campaign, but as soon as that conversation veers into public money for private schools, the conversation gets pretty messy between the two parties.

The best Kansas conversation I came up with was: You’re right, property taxes are too burdensome. You’re right, the Brownback tax experiment was a failure. That conversation doesn’t particularly excite me because I’m not even sure what type of deal it would create. Maybe meaningful tax reform that isn’t designed to starve government?

I guess I’ll choose to be optimistic and believe that the struggle to come up with a Kansas conversation is a sign that Topeka is less broken than Washington, D.C.. I do worry that Washington D.C. is too broken to have these types of conversations. It is easy to picture the Democrats overstating the mandate they received. It is easy to picture the Republicans simply choosing to say the Democrats are radioactively radical and must be avoided at all costs.

If either tactic comes to pass, I predict you won’t ever hear our three little words uttered. Instead, it will be the three words that tear relationships apart — and also have defined a generation of American politics.

Nothing ever changes.