Walking the Talk...But Somewhere Else

If someone happened to mention to you "wolf reintroductionin Oregon", would you be supportive or not? According to a columnistin the Sunday Oregonian, the way you would view this is issue is most likely tied to where you live. If you call an urban/suburban area home, then you'll probably think it's a smashing good idea, one whose time is long past. If, on the other hand, you live in a rural part of the state -- in an area in which you might actually come face-to-face with a reintroduced wolf while checking your mailbox or puttering in your garden -- you will most likely be opposed to the idea.

I believe this columnist aptly placed his thumb squarely on a very important issue, one that too many people don't like to think about -- People are more likely to support a policy, strategy or idea if it doesn't impact or effect them directly in their everyday lives. In other words, people are more likely to favor ideas that have a certain philosophical or romanticized resonance over ideas that might cause each to have to modify their own actions and behaviors. (Of course, this works in reverse as well. A lot of people are willing to support something if it directly benefits them, regardless of whether or not it benefits or adversely affects anyone else.)

We see this phenomena everywhere. Harkening back to the previous entry, the farmers of Klamath County most likely support general conservative economic policies, yet they are coming unglued at the thought of losing their liberally-initiated subsidized power. They fail to understand the contradiction between their general voting pattern and the theory behind subsidized electricity.

Many voters who have supported the various property tax initiatives -- those initiatives that have robbed government of its ability to serve the most needy -- go absolutely bonkers if a private agency attempts to locate a halfway house or a residential facility for the developmentally disabled within their cozy neighborhood. They don't seem to understand that if government isn't going to meet such needs, someone else will. And that someone else has to locate their facility somewhere!

This might sound like another rant against conservatives. It isn't. Progressives are just as guilty. As outlined above, most of the ardent supporters of Oregon's wolf reintroduction program are steadfast URBAN environmentalists. If the plan called for wolves to be let loose in the Rose Quarter in Portland or around Bush Park here in Salem, would the same individuals be the same vociferous advocates they are now? If history is our guide, the answer is a resounding NO.

Another example has played out lately in Marion County. As I'm sure most of you are aware, the American Nazi Party was granted participation in the county's Adopt-A-Road litter pickup program. I've heard many progressives both decry the county for approving the Nazi's application and applauding the unknown vandals who removed the taxpayer-funded signs. Such attitudes spring from the very same people who would become indignant if the group in question was the NAACP or Basic Rights Oregon.

The right to free speech should not be limited to those we happen to agree with. In fact, the true measure of freedom is how you treat those with whom you disagree the most. If one can guarantee the basics rights of the opposition, then the rights of all are protected.

Regardless of a person's political or philosophical beliefs, we each need to reexamine our bedrock principles. A principle doesn't mean much at all if we will only support it if it doesn't inconvenience us or cause us to alter OUR actions or behaviors. It's damn easy to support an idea, law or policy that directly impacts others, but might only impact us indirectly or not at all. The rubber hits the road when we can stand strong for things that impact us directly as much as the next person. In such cases, our support means that much more.

This should also give us pause as we debate solutions to society's ills. Each of us must try to follow the Indian concept of walking a mile in the other person's moccasins. It is only when we are genuinely able to crawl inside the skin of our adversaries that we can attempt to understand the problem at hand from THEIR perspective.

People who are more willing to view issues from all sides are the very same people most likely to forge strong compromises that all sides can hold ownership in and, since we all share our communities together, it's the only way we can move forward equitably and justly.