Publisher’s Note: One question, two different points of view
Darel La Prade is publisher of the Delaware State News.
There appears to be little disagreement that our country is polarized culturally and politically. Public intellectuals and citizens have scores of reasons as to why this is the case. Perhaps, we should pay less attention as to why we are polarized, and focus more on what polarization means to our way of life and to the future of our democratic republic.
Are you optimistic or pessimistic that, despite the current state of polarization, our leaders and citizens will be able to find constructive ways to work together and identify a path to long-term compromise?
We posed this question to a pair of regular contributors to our Opinion pages and asked them if they would agree to be guinea pigs to help us launch an experiment to demonstrate that, even when at odds, it is possible for us to disagree respectfully and with civility.
Frank Daniels, a retired U.S. Army Colonel who lives in Dover, finds it hard to be optimistic, and he fears what the future might hold unless there is serious change soon. On the other hand, Dr. Arthur E. Sowers of Harbeson, a retired research professor from the University of Maryland, is more pragmatic and remains optimistic about our collective future.
We are truly grateful to Col. Daniels and Dr. Sowers for their willingness to participate in this initiative, and fingers crossed, we hope to recruit other readers to volunteer to take part in these guided conversations. After all, we know as citizens that we have the power to change our politics, but sometimes we forget that our politics change us, too, so it is our ultimate hope that by encouraging people to engage in civil exchanges about the state of our society, we can all learn to stop fearing the other side and rather learn to work collectively for the betterment of our communities.
