A Rift in Oregon

Kenji Sugahara

Jason Evans recently wrote an eloquent piece entitled "Simply My Opinion." He says that there is no compromise nor any middle ground. There are no discussions on any issue. However, yesterday, I had a wonderful debate with Brett Mersereau regarding my Gas=Crack post. I was impressed with his research and his thoughtfulness. We agreed on some issues, but we respectfully disagreed on others. We understood that our arguments weren't personal.

However, there are many individuals who don't want to find common ground, take disagreement as a personal affront, want to further polarize the state, want to devalue moderates, and don't want to engage in thoughtful, rational debate.

For example, Ted Piccolo, an activist, says the path to victory for a Republican lies not in moving to the ideological center but in becoming more conservative. Otherwise, he said, “you lose the broken-glass Republicans, the people who will crawl over broken glass for you.” Fickle Oregon voters take Republicans on a wild ride, Portland Tribune, 11/8/02

Larry George, exeucutive director of Oregonians in Action says “When someone says they’re a moderate, it means they’re going to listen to whatever a special interest will tell them to do. I don’t want to say they’re for sale, but they’re for sale. The people who should be celebrated are the people who take strong philosophical stands.” Fickle Oregon voters take Republicans on a wild ride, Portland Tribune, 11/8/02

There are the individuals that we need to engage or make a good faith attempt to engage. These are the folks that bask in our divisions. They want to accentuate our differences.

How do we counter these types of individuals? Through discussion and education, just as people did at the Engage Oregon Conference. The One True b!X even made a blog entry about it. We can do it through thoughtful discussion just as Brett and I had. We can do it by celebrating what we have in common instead of highlighting our differences.

A few months ago I wrote a guest opinion in the Statesman Journal in Salem regarding gay marriage. In response, I received a rather harsh e-mail. Instead of firing off a nasty-gram, I thought to engage him in dialogue. I was pleasantly surprised when I received the following response:

Thank you for responding to my response and listing your sources. I do agree that the more dialogue there is about and issue the better. Now if the Multnomah County Commissioners had agreed to that we might not have the circus we have up there and this might be a less heated issue! I'm sorry for my unfortunate choice of words regarding interracial marriage. What I was thinking was that the argument against interracial marriage was ignorant, but I guess an idea isn't ignorant, only people are. Poor choice of words on my part...I certainly wasn't calling you or anyone else in particular ignorant. What I meant to say was it was a bankrupt idea. I wholeheartedly agree with your priorities. Who wouldn't want these things in our society. What a world we would have if all these things were fully taking place.

It goes to show that we can really talk about issues without resorting to division and vitriol. Sometimes we just need to be reminded.

As John Kerry said, we need to highlight our shared values:

"We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith. Hard work and responsibility. Opportunity for all – so that every child, every parent, every worker has an equal shot at living up to their God-given potential."

This may be considered touchy feely, but they are concepts that need to be appreciated and shared.

By Kenji Sugahara July 30, 2004