Better to fight, or find an answer?

Conflict is an unavoidable part of the human condition. And many of us don’t want to avoid it, but rather thrive on it. It happens at all levels of societal interaction, between nations and between individuals. We may all become accustomed to it and find ways to make it precipitate change, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best approach to resolving differences. Especially as a long-term way to express one’s opinions on any issue, it can have such negative effects on civil discourse over time that no good outcome can be found.

This, after all, is why diplomacy was born, isn’t it?

So when communities find themselves entrenched in disagreements that have become so profound as to be intractable, it’s time to find a way to practice diplomacy, even if it means bringing in an objective mediator to be part of the process. It could be that this is where both Salisbury and Falls Village are on the discussion of affordable housing. Even though Falls Village has already approved the housing proposed there, and Salisbury voted on it this week, no matter the outcome of decisions, if a town is still so split on a single problem, it can be hard to move forward on any town business.

Once that happens to a community, such patterns can become impossible to reverse if there is no intervention. What’s that historic American example from the late 19th century, the Hatfields and the McCoys? Or Shakespeare’s profound description of destructive feuding, “Romeo and Juliet,” where the houses of Capulet and Montague brought themselves to irredeemable tragedy.

How dramatic must we get before we can see that there should be a way to compromise? And at the heart of that needs to be respect for those on the opposing side of the issue as a base for open discussion and resolution. This newspaper has taken a clear position on affordable housing, over many years and currently, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t welcome opinions from all sides of the issue. That’s because the more voices, the more likely there will be a better and more inclusive outcome in the end. 

For those who disagree with the affordable housing plans on the table now, and those listening to their objections, there needs to be common ground. There are details that can be modified to make both sides feel they have been heard, and that they’ve had a positive effect on the final planning and outcome.  

Wouldn’t it be preferable to avoid the divisiveness of our national politics? If small towns, where people often know one another or at least recognize one another from the market or the transfer station, can’t find a way to cooperate and make things work, who can?