When I began my role as a newspaper publisher, an acquaintance from a previous career came to visit. Dennis was an affable guy who was one of the most intelligent people I ever knew. We were instantly at ease with each other and I was always happy to see him when he would come by my office with his newest business scheme. The amazing thing about our friendship was that we disagreed on almost everything political.
Discussions revolved around how issues could be resolved, rather than whether their existence. For some reason, although both of us were passionate in defense of a position, neither raised his voice or used threatening gestures or verbiage to augment it. In fact, there were many moments when we were able to not only understand the other’s viewpoint, but accept some of its conclusions. In other cases, we agreed to disagree without rancor. At the end of all such meetings, we parted as friends with the intention of further get-togethers.
Dennis passed away many years ago but he remains firmly in my heart and I can still hear his voice asking for a chance to consider his side of political arguments as well as the sometimes silly, fanciful gag ideas. His playfulness was a counterpoint to a tumultuous childhood that helped shape his outlook on the political scene. Understanding his life story helped me to appreciate his perspective. My youth was vastly different and probably helped shape a separate perception. Neither of us was wrong, simply molded in a different way and from different material. Even with that chasm of youthful experience, there was an intrinsic fellowship and warmth that could not be denied.
When I hear comments that contradict my ideas and statements of “facts” without valid data, I thank Dennis for opening my eyes to the kaleidoscope of experiences, ideas and motivations behind them. Before dismissing such ideas out-of-hand, I need to slow down and listen carefully. When I do this, I often agree with many of the complaint and sympathize with the frustration and anger exhibited. It turns out that the goal is often the same but the means to reach it are at odds. If agreement can be reached on at least one aspect of an argument, it forms the beginning of dialogue, even compromise and, at least, lessening of hostilities. This is the path toward civility that paves the road of meaningful political action. Well prepared arguments, bolstered by a shared set of facts may travel different routes toward a solution, yet find room for common discourse and activity. Without it, chaos reigns.
In these times of dissention and disagreement of what is fact and fiction, there are very serious issues that need to be addressed soberly, with sound logic while preserving individual rights and freedoms, devoid of hysteria. School safety, firearm controls, medical rights and costs, housing availability, climate changes, immigration control are just a few. The only way to begin to address and solve these issues is frank and clear dialogue.
RIP Dennis… I miss you
