Dialogue (Norwich listserv)

Quick reply to Maureen's post from a few minutes ago. I'm out of town the rest of this week so won't be responding for a few days -- so please don't misconstrue silence.

Maureen asks who I think is superimposing these values. I'm trying to sat that we all are. We all use terms like dialogue and community, but we don't often critically question what we mean ourselves. It's probably human nature that when I bemoan a lack of dialogue I'm often really complaining that others don't agree with me. A sense of a lack of community may really be a sense of not comfortably belonging oneself, most often prompted by a realization that a number of other people we live near disagree with us on some seemingly fundamental values.

At its best, active engagement in the democratic process should be a matter of self-discovery. As we confront the unlike-minded we should be humbled by our own provinciality, finding with each conversation and each constructive compromise that we never saw an issue from these other points of view because we never thought to ask before. Non one ever talks about that aspect of self-governance.

In a similar vein, we seldom honestly discuss the roots of our political predicament. We are defined not by a shared sense of community or values, but by the basic legal facts of our property. You and I are Norwich residents by dint of our being property owners and thus taxpayers in this political entity. My wife and I were married and settled here based on our own personal projections of what life in this town might mean. Every household here is a different story with many different values and often conflicting goals. Yet we're all granted the right to vote here due to our physical location and our taxpaying obligation.

And yet Jeff's posts seeking a more constructive and thoughtful way to engage one another eloquently express aspirations many, perhaps most of us share. We want to belong, we want to feel we've contributed, we want to be heard, we want to understand what is going on, and we're all afraid, to some extent, that the things we value in our lives here may be under threat. That fear drives the shrillness of our political debate and often overwhelms the impulses to belong, contribute, and understand.

So I'm just saying let's be realistic about what we're after and how we think we can get it. The first step, in my opinion, is to take a hard look at our own projections and question whether we're ready to listen and try to understand other views that appear to frustrate those aspirations. As people become more realistic about what's at stake and the impossibility of achieving most of these goals through this year's selectboard majority or next years warrant article, maybe we begin to rethink the role and purpose of the political entities we have inherited. Warned town meetings reflect a long-standing political and legal struggle that has nothing to do with dialogue or good decision-making. A selectboard has authority to promulgate legislative policy but can choose many different ways to exercise that authority. It' a real tragedy that a succession of elected members and vocal partisans have fallen into a pattern this past dozen years which primarily serves Valley News circulation. With Town Eating Day, we've struggled to create a few different forums which we hope might lead volunteer committees, elected officials and townspeople to rethink their roles. It's been very tough going and it's not at all clear whether it will succeed. I agree 100% that while writing to listservs can start conversations, dialogue requires face time and the time to listen. I also agree that listserv postings can silence more readily than they can prompt conversation.