Looking at the opinions and positions of the writers
in HCN, it’s clear that many don’t have the same
ambivalence that I have.
I grew up in the country of
southwestern Pennsylvania and enjoyed it immensely. Always a rebel,
I was pro-McGovern and anti-Nixon, and gradually became a Reagan
Republican, ever retaining my love for the woods. Now I’m a
father of three, live in the West, and can’t ever seem to
discern a “black or white” in the multitude of issues bearing down
on the land and people of this part of the country. I’m
pro-growth and pro-green space. I’m pro-Bush and deeply
concerned about how the continuing influx of people into the West
affects its unique attributes, resources and various ways of life.
My point is that actually resolving issues that face us
all is harder when we create divisiveness and point fingers (for
example, at “corporate America”) than it is when we build
grassroots coalitions and resolve things at the most local levels.
That means getting involved and having a stake. It also means being
informed and truly appreciating the perspectives of those who
don’t hold our views.
In my opinion, the paper
should provide all responsible perspectives relating to life in the
high country. I know we all can’t just get along, but we can
take a view of how we might like to see this part of the country
20, 30 or 40 years hence from the eyes of our children, as well as
how we get by and get along in the intervening years.
Jim R. Smith
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline We need solutions, not divisiveness.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
