By Margie Doyle
I had a good, if quirky education. For example, I’ve known what parthenogenesis meant since I was 16 and it was explained to me that virgin births are, in fact and science, possible, documented in other species, if not in humans.
And though I grew up on one side of the Iron Curtain, during the blanketed terror of the Cold War, I was taught first and foremost to love my neighbor as myself, to think of others; and to value goodness above all else.
Well, then came my introduction to American politics, with the explanation that democratic meant “of the people” — or more precisely “of citizens” and republican meant “of public affairs;” that democracy meant “government by majority rule” and republicanism meant “government by representatives.”
Then came the Libertarians, whom I understood to represent those who guarded personal rights in the face of government regulation and restriction. Conservatives were those who felt it was of paramount importance to “conserve” the values and principles on which the country was founded.
In the county council election this year, there was much talk of “partisanship.” If I were to explain the active “parties” in this local election, it would not be democrats or republicans, but more property rightists and environmental protectionists, or more targeted, Common Sense Alliance and Friends of the San Juans. It appeared that their followers were more involved in public matters than the Democratic or Republican Party. So the argument about partisan or non-partisan seemed specious? to me.
All prelude to meetings in these past weeks where, along with the Exchange Design, Eastsound Planning Review, School Bond discussions, the Friends of the San Juans joined with Futurewise to discuss Shorelines and Boundaries in consideration of the county’s process through the Shoreline Management Plan update, and the Eagle Forum’s annual meeting included discussions about OPALCO’s broadband vision and the San Juan’s National Monument designation.
And I got to thinking about the similarity between the two groups if you consider their basic missions: the Friends, to conserve for future sustainability the environment and “natural capital” of our natural environs; and the Eagle Forum, to conserve the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty and governmental restrictions.
It’s not that I’m unprincipled or radical; it’s just that I think they both speak truth, and both speak truth to power.
For example, slides shown by the Friends and Futurewise showed the catastrophic results of bulkheads on feeder bluffs; points made by Daniel Himebaugh, attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, illustrated the disproportionate and unconnected regulations some governments apply in what appears to be a disingenuous show of “protecting” the environment.
And who benefits? Those who are trying to preserve Constitutional rights against governmental heavy-handedness or those who are trying to preserve the environment for the future benefit of all? Neither.
I’d like to challenge a board member of the Friends to commit to be a conserve rights and environment spokesperson on the Eagle Forum and likewise, challenge an Eagle Forum board member to be a conserve the environment and rights spokesperson on the Friends board. And thereby challenge the boards to welcome such liaisons.
Further, how about other “polarized” organizations to welcome their counterparts to regular meetings or dialogues with each other?
We use different words and different emphasis, based on our own experiences. We speak the same language.
Margie,
Although well stated, the premise behind your suggestion is wrong. Those who stand behind the agendas and policies of “Friends of the San Juan’s” and those who are opposed, including “Common Sense Alliance” are polar opposites and for good reason. This is not due to a lack of understanding of the others position. Quite the contrary, both understand each other’s positions very well.
It is not possible for any “Common Sense Alliance,” property and individual rights, conservative and United States Constitution supporting person to advocate or support the principles of the “Friends” and their allies, nor would it be possible for supporters of “Friends” and their allies to advocate in support the values of the others listed above.
It is true Margie that often our goals are the same and it is our methods to achieving those goals that differ. Conservatives understand the need for maintaining the health, welfare and future of our planet and would normally do so in a manner all inclusive.
Unless it is one’s goal to wipe out massive segments of the human population on this earth, it is necessary to incorporate human population growth into the equation of a “sustainable” earth. We must consider all segments of society, economies and sciences in the equation.
Eluding as you did to a virgin birth, consider for a moment, a Satanist and a Christian advocating each other’s beliefs, and each in a positive manner of the other. Not going to happen without someone abandoning core principles
Hallelujah Don! You hit the nail on the head
Margie,
Thank you for bringing your thinking forward on this subject. All of us living in San Juan County have a stake in finding a better way to engage in creating the communties we want to call home. Your suggestion that there be opportunities for cross-connections, through formal board connection, or through community dialogues, could create space for island neighbors to share their diverse views and co-create a potent future for our children, grandchildren and beyond. Dialogue, not debate. Listening and learning from one another.
Thanks for inviting the possibilities.
Margie, great challange! Don, you state a strong case, the ideals we embrace are best utilized when they are applied and in motion.
What is attractive in our community is our diversity and values, and the willingness to share them. Clyde
Good going, Margie!
United we rise, divided we fall.
Mindsets among adults are hard to move around. Most political activists only change their minds in their memoirs – if at all. Unfortunately, most attempts at conciliation with only opinions and so called “best science” on the table only widens the gap. The residents of San Juan County, as Clyde said, have values and are diverse and maybe occasionally are even a cantankerous lot, but for sure, none of us have any desire to be like any one else. The lyrics in a well known Broadway Musical said, “Why do we have to be like them? Why can’t they be like us”, and for sure, that’s where we all are. Ain’t democracy grand?
That was a good statement, and a good challenge, Margie.But there is another element I learned long ago: that organizations whose funding and energies come from people who have strong beliefs and who have personalized what they perceive as the opposition cannot suddenly become reasonable toward the perceived opposition without alienating their own membership and funding bases, without reaching an overarching understanding that the members of both organizations can agree to. Even then, the fringes will remain fringes. It seems that it’s not the heads of the competing organizations that need to be brought together, it’s their members.
Labels are an issue to be reckoned with. We all use them as a shorthand but they limit our ability to communicate. For example, I am not a “conservative,” I decline to be associated with any organized political party, I have been a conservationist since the 60s, and I support the Common Sense Alliance positions with respect to County land use regulation. Those facts will produce serious cognitive dissonance in those who think of islanders as fitting into one of two boxes.