This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Dissenting Discourse is Vital

I’ve been a registered Republican all my life but at the national level, I have often vehemently disagreed with my party’s positions. One thing I totally disagree with is the premise that there is only one correct view on any issue, “my” view. Very few issues are either black or white. Every important complex problem has opposing solutions, and usually each contains more than a kernel of truth. Discourse that airs opposing points of view is important. In addition, hearing advocates with some degree of authority who hold opposing views is key to making well-thought-out policy.

Unfortunately, we have largely failed to see this at the national level, but there, at least we have some checks and balances to rein in excesses. At the local level, we don’t have the same institutional checks and balances, therefore decisions by our local boards really need to be tempered by discourse looking at all sides of issues in more than just a cursory fashion. The last thing we need is a rubber-stamp Board of Selectmen with everyone espousing the same point of view. Some call that loyalty to the man at the top of the ticket. However, loyalty should be to all the people of Guilford. Those two loyalties are rarely the exact same thing. The town cannot afford to have policy decisions made by one person, no matter their perceived mandate.

Dissenting discourse is not only good, it’s vital. The term “devil’s advocate” is unfortunate—there is nothing evil in elucidating and advocating opposing points of view. I would have very serious reservations about supporting someone who cannot see the advantages to this idea.

Mark Janke

Guilford