Democracy is not for the faint of heart

Alan Wartes

When I was in the U.S. Army, we were often reminded that in the pursuit of any given plan, there’s the “book solution” and the “field solution.” In other words, there’s a big difference between what appears to work in the computer simulation and what actually works on the ground. There, reality has veto power and frequently exercises it.

That doesn’t mean we didn’t bother to make a plan — only that experience had taught us to expect the execution of it to be far messier and more unpredictable in practice than in theory.

I think about that these days when participating in the grand experiment called democratic governance. “ … of the people, by the people, for the people” — a worthy goal if ever there was one — looks great on paper. It sounds good in a rousing speech. But making it work on the street is often something else entirely. It takes a skilled touch and a willingness to adapt on the run to tricky conditions.

Take the First Amendment, for instance. Recent events involving the Gunnison County Libraries perfectly illustrate the messy complexity I’m talking about. As we report in this week’s edition of the Times, a member of the community recently objected to the sexually-themed content of a book in the young adult section of the library — and a number of people rallied to let the library board know they opposed the move.

So far, so good. But some have characterized Rebecca White’s actions as a clearcut case of Nazi Germany-style censorship and the dark impulse to ban (and burn) books. Others perceived a personal attack upon themselves and a threat to their right to choose their own identity and lifestyle.

That is what I would call the “book solution” to the problem (no pun intended). That is, it’s the simple answer that may be true in the broadest theoretical sense, but which ironically doesn’t allow for, or attempt to understand, any diversity of opinion on the matter. To be clear, I don’t mean on the matter of whether the book should be banned — it should not — but whether its content is appropriate for children and whether the library leadership has a duty to exercise caution about what is within the reach of young people — and to reasonably consider input from the community in the process.

It’s easy to be against banning books. If anyone ever organizes a local burning I’ll be the first to show up with a fire extinguisher. But it’s much harder to hold an honest and inclusive discussion about how to define words like “obscenity” or assess what might be harmful to young people. Step one may be the most difficult part of all — acknowledging in good faith that there are multiple legitimate points of view on the subject, and that everyone deserves to be heard. That’s particularly true when discussing what happens at a publicly funded institution like a library.

It’s worth noting that White did not organize an angry mob or throw bricks through any windows. She filled out the form that library policy dictates is the proper channel for “requesting reconsideration of materials.” She waited for a response from the library director, which policy also says will be forthcoming. Only when two months had gone by with no word did she bring the matter up as an unscheduled citizen in a meeting of county commissioners. In that meeting she stated that her goal was to have the book moved to the adult section of the library.

In other words, White exercised her right to be heard on a community issue of importance to her — with actions that do not deserve comparison to historical book bannings or much of the language you will read in today’s letters to the editor. 

Book banning is a bad idea. Period. But so is attacking the motives and character of someone who simply sees an issue differently than you do with harsh and unfounded rhetoric. A “field solution” to issues like these is one that accounts for all points of view and accepts that democracy is always a team sport.

In a recent editorial, New York Times columnist David Brooks compared democratic governance to farming and wrote, “The founders knew that democracy is not natural. It takes a lot of cultivation to make democracy work.”

Brooks identifies what he calls the “seedbeds of democracy” — the key skills of making it all work on the street, not just in theory: “... how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.”

Our community isn’t immune to tough conversations and hard decisions. It can’t hurt to remember that we reap what we sow.

(Alan Wartes can be contacted at 970.641.1414 or publisher@gunnisontimes.com.)