The results of our local election are unfortunate and painful, but those who deny that divisiveness was a real issue may be deluding themselves. The matter of divisiveness was real, and not simply a code phrase promoting conformity.
It is not much of a secret that even within the "Audrey plus two" Selectboard Majority, there was so much personal estrangement that at least two out of the three progressive Selectboard members were barely talking to each other.
And if that much friction existed among the three people who were ostensibly allies, then how much more hard feeling must there have been between people on opposite sides of major issues? In business or politics, some collegial feeling are essential between those on opposite sides, as well as between those who are in basic agreement.
Sometimes it is not enough simply to out-power the other side. As an example, before the 1956 Supreme Court vote on Brown v. Board of Education, which ended the Separate But Equal doctrine in this country, Chief Justice Warren was not content with the prospect of a 5-4 decision (at first it seemed unlikely that the Court would strike down segregation at all, and that at best it would be 5-4). He sought out the opposing justices, and asked them to explain their objections, and asked: "What issues would have to be addressed in order for you to change your mind?" After last year's change on the Selectboard, I had hoped that issues would be approached in that spirit, and wrote to the members about it. Although they received my suggestion cordially; over and over I saw 3-2 decision with no discernible attempt to bridge the divide. For example, I was please that our town took a position in favor of fair trade, but it seemed that the pragmatic goal of passing the resolution was all that mattered. In my opinion, a principled, moral issue of that much importance should have been worth more of a struggle to win over skeptics.
Even if Dick seemed unlikely to ever change his mind, nonetheless his pathetic excuse for voting not to take a stance against child labor, slave labor, and sweat shops should have been addressed, and he should have been asked the kind of questions which would have forced him to say something real, rather than to get away with transparent posturing. Steve Steidle, who is a thoughtful person even if I often do not agree with his thoughts, should not simply have been opposed, he should have been intelligently challenged and put on the spot to make a plausible account of his stance on fair trade. Simply to outvote Steve with little attempt to connect with him as a person and challenge his views, lets him off the hook too easily, and lets you off the hook as well because it is easier to overpower someone than to engage them in genuine dialogue.
When much of your political experience comes from attending left-wing meetings which are dominated by a clique which is controlled by one or two forceful personalities, then your rhetoric about an open process will inevitably be skewed in ways which seem perfectly normal to you, but which appear contradictory to others who are not part of your group.
During the past year the progressive Selectboard members worked long hours diligently and intelligently, including at a great many early morning meetings, and they got the town back on track financially in an incredibly short time. Unfortunately style and negative appearances have upstaged those highly substantive accomplishments. In politics or in business it is not enough to prevail, or even to do what is right: Diplomacy is needed. I was amazed at times to see a 3-2 vote on issues which I wholeheartedly supported, with the winners failing to extend any cordiality to the two who had been outvoted, and in fact to continue to exude bitterness even after they had won!
When one side simply overpowers the other and missed opportunities to make gracious gestures, then the accomplishments are likely to be short-lived. If our world is going to be transformed, we are going to have to figure out how to get beyond the one-dimensional tug of war between opposing policies. Maybe we'll get another chance, and maybe next time our representatives will get beyond simply being right. They were very much under fire, and it is not easy to bring forth one's best in those circumstances. Now that Martha plus two have come to power, we will have to see how they are going to meet the challenge.