Dissecting the Discourse

(Sunday's print column)

A concerned Mayor Ron Corbett met with our editorial board this past week.

He's concerned about the low quality of public discourse, and contends that providing space on our opinion page for letters and columns depicting harsh misrepresentations of city decisions is a contributing factor. His critique took much of an hour, so I'm summarizing. A lot.

And it's my column. So here's my assessment of public discourse in this fair city.

Not to be overly negative, but our discourse has basically slipped into a vortex of outrage, recrimination, ax-grinding and grudge-holding that's sucking dry our already depleted reserves of cooperation, good will and determination to transcend long-smoldering disagreements and get things done. Too dark? Sorry.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, there are folks out there who have decided that making perfectly reasonable arguments against various city decisions is far less cathartic than endlessly accusing elected officials of plotting to criminally defraud taxpayers at the behest of a shadowy elite bent on forcing us to sit in amphitheaters and shop at year-round farmers markets. Legitimate anger at some very real and regrettable mistakes made by the city during the flood recovery is now being wielded as a pretext to sling rocks at positive efforts to breathe some new life into those neighborhoods.

Frustrating, clearly. But as someone who makes a living dishing out opinions, I'm not going to tell anyone to silence their own, whether I like it or not.

It's also worth noting that our leaders are hardly innocent lambs, suddenly beset by a pack of mean ol' wolves.

The mayor says “distrust” is really “disagreement.” I say “distrust,” goes both ways.

If our leaders trust us, why, for instance, was the Convention Complex project shoved ahead so swiftly that the public didn't really understand its scope, costs and implications until we were neck-deep? Where was the drive to gain broader public buy-in? Not surprising that the information gap would be filled with misunderstanding.

Why did the backers of the March 6 vote run a quiet campaign asking for a tax to build flood protection without trying to fully explain to the public exactly what those dollars would buy?

The mayor accused us of elevating irresponsible critics, but he and his allies have, at times, allowed the “misinformed” to inform, even dictate, their approaches and message. If there were damaging misstatements out there eroding public confidence in flood-protection plans, why weren't they aggressively countered?

While leaders and we-can-do-betters played their chess-game grudge match inside the vortex, the vast majority of folks were left on the sidelines. And about eight in 10 turned their back on the whole thing on Election Day.

The mayor needs to take his own advice. Stop fixating on those who irritate and infuriate you most. Focus more on making a more compelling case to most of the rest. If you're waiting for the league of perpetual outrage to quit, you're going to be disappointed. But you can quit letting them set the ground rules.

If responsible voices and reasonable arguments are being drowned out, make them louder. Pitch them more aggressively. Set clear, ambitious goals and bring the community along. Grab allies from the sidelines. Not all of your critics are beyond persuasion. But you have to accept that some are, and move on.

It's risky and messy and may still fail. But it's one route out of the vortex.