THE FUTILITY OF CONSENSUS
By
Jack H. Swift, Esq.
December 10, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Second Oregon Rural Congress Bombs in Coos Bay
Last August advocates for Rural Oregon made news and attracted statewide attention by holding the first Oregon Rural Congress at Cascade Locks. Their message and motive was to publicize the short shrift being given rural Oregon by the urban interests in Portland and Salem. It was clearly a successful effort, attracting the participation of important State legislators and reactionary commentary from the Portland media.
Last Friday, the second Oregon Rural Congress was held over in Coos Bay and it was a thud heard round the State. It is now predictable that this grassroots movement will be going nowhere and that Salem may safely continue to ignore the needs of those areas not planned for densification within urban growth boundaries.
The fact of the movement’s failure makes for an informative study in the management of successful advocacy, both in terms of activities and policy.
Successful advocacy demands activity. Advocates must be doing something regularly, else they will lose the ardor of their convictions and they will lose the support of their backers. This is not a demand that they be continually successful. Trying reform involves battles and many battles are lost. The fact of momentary defeat does not add up to failure. Failure to try, on the other hand, is simply and completely failure.
The first Oregon Rural Congress was a great airing of grievances. The significance of that airing turned upon what action was to ensue. Unfortunately, the leadership failed utterly to do anything in the ninety days between the first and second congress. Networking was not established among the sundry participants. No agenda was planned. Worse, there was a retreat from the objective of presenting any sort of policy confrontation. On these grounds alone, the movement was in trouble going into the second congress.
In terms of policy, the leadership made a strategic decision which also has served to doom the effort. In response to a very critical urban media backlash, a decision was apparently made to avoid confrontation and to avoid the appearance of confrontation. Instead of presenting demands for rights and fair and equal treatment, the spin was adopted of finding a consensus for dealing with common problems. This policy, pervading all of the second congress, is an exercise in futility. With one entrenched group committed to the confinement of growth within urban growth boundaries and another aggrieved group demanding support for those outside the UGBs, what consensus is possible?
The result of the policy adjustment by the congress’ leadership was that the largest contingent represented at the second Oregon Rural Congress was that of the public service agencies seeking greater tax contributions from rural Oregon to fund their activities. Representation of rural interests was contributed by those of us from southern Oregon and the local Coos Bay interests.
Central Oregon was completely absent. The leadership was from eastern Oregon but otherwise, their participation was absent. Noteworthy in their absence were the representatives from the gorge. In short, because of the leadership interest in tolerance and diversity, the congress was effectively co-opted by the very government agencies sucking the blood from rural Oregon.
The reality is that there is a time for negotiation, there is a time for compromise, and there is a time for confrontation. In the absence of effective confrontation, there really is no opportunity for effective negotiation or compromise. Advocacy groups cannot surrender to the “let’s get along” attitude early in the game before they have won anything. Such a policy is doomed to failure, as illustrated by the second Oregon Rural Congress.
Nor can an advocacy group commit itself to an agenda of consensus building, particularly where the opposition has a significant voice in developing the consensus. Consensus building is fine, particularly say for the development of a policy statement of confrontation. It makes no sense whatever to have the opposition have a say in that consensus. To grant the opposition such a say, is tantamount to granting Republicans a voice in the development of the Democratic Party platform.
The one pervasive theme in the complaints of rural Oregon is the policy of comprehensive statewide land use regulation by a land czar in Salem. With that comes a secondary policy of investment and utilization of State funds within the urban growth boundaries. When rural communities complain, the answer is a simple one: you shouldn’t be living where you are. If you elected to come in from the hills and valleys and live on the reservation, you would be taken care of.
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Most notably, a representative from southern Oregon advised the congress that the legislation flowing from the Big Look review of comprehensive statewide land use regulation will not provide more local control of zoning and planning. Quite the contrary, it will consolidate control in the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. The congress was dumbstruck. There was no comment. The key problem confronting rural Oregon was not addressed.
In all, the second Oregon Rural Congress was an exercise in futility.
© 2008 Jack Swift - All Rights Reserved
