Both Sides Win With Mediation

One hallmark of a healthy democracy is the vigorous debate of public issues. But something has gone terribly wrong in this country when people are killed because of who they are or what they believe.

Public debate about controversial issues such as abortion, gay rights and politics has become angry, even violent. This kind of polarization seems to be encouraged by special interest groups and the politicians they support. No wonder voters are apathetic; they want to tune out the shrill debate between the extremes. This is not healthy democracy.

That’s why we enthusiastically support attempts to reach compromise, of opposing groups searching for common ground. On today’s Perspective page, we’ve published essays from three North Idaho residents who represent different perspectives on timber harvesting. All three recognize the need to search for common ground, even though, as one writer describes, the timber industry and the environmental movement seem to have “intractable” philosophical differences.

The Nature Conservancy has demonstrated there is a glimmer of hope. The Conservancy is working with Crown Pacific to preserve an ecologically sensitive tract of land at Cougar Bay on Lake Coeur d’Alene. Environmentalists are wary. They say this is, at best, a baby step. But it’s a step in the right direction.

Here’s more positive news: Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, worked with Democrats to create the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in Tucson. The institute will offer an alternative to lawsuits for resolving environmental disputes involving federal policy. It will be available to federal agencies, environmental groups and private organizations, and will offer a neutral place outside Washington, D.C., for mediation.

Peter Likins, a member of the institute’s board of trustees, pointed out that conflict can be resolved “only if both parties are interested in resolution.” If either party seeks to win conflict rather than resolve it, “this institute has no role to play.”

Locally, timber interests have sold or traded valuable cedar groves at Liberty Lake, Upper Priest Lake and on Moscow Mountain. The trees now are in protected nature preserves instead of on their way to sawmills.

We hope these small steps signal the beginning of the end of this protracted battle.

We expect our politicians to become leaders on this issue, to encourage discussion, not polarization. And if timber industry executives and environmentalists in North Idaho can meet and find some common ground, we should be optimistic about the future of our democracy.

We don’t expect solutions overnight. But we strongly encourage a return to more civilized public discourse. Vigorous debate, yes. But no more fighting words, please.