The idea that you or anyone judges outcomes is also a tough one to argue. Results in politics are complex to the point of being opaque. If you figure out a way to judge politicians accurately, do tell.
As long as the votes are still public we know what the legislator ultimately did, which in my mind is much for valuable than listening to the bluster they said.
Results are rarely black or white and less transparency makes it easier to create fake narratives.
> I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations.
This really does not make any sense. You seem to be arguing for less polarized discourse, but I cannot see how that is accomplished by hiding discourse. By hiding it, you create little pockets of extremism, not to mention opening up the doors for illegal and traitorous behavior.
Politicians can speak freely right now. What they want to do is further game the system, and I'm not sure how you can interpret these actions as otherwise.
> I'll judge them on the end result
You can already do that, and in Arizona, the end results don't look so good. Arizona, despite having a lot of potential and having beautiful natural landscape, seems to be consistently listed as one of the worst states to live in. Even the mere fact of Arizona being livable in the coming century is debatable due to climate change.
In a public forum people would likely view the compromise as one or both politicians "losing" and a mixture of ego and fear of not getting re-elected would prevent either party from giving ground and taking more measured approach.
So your argument basically boil down to: the end justifies the means. Do I understand correctly?
Seriously?