Wert’s Werds: It’s OK to cautiously agree with Gary Groman

In a world where everything is being turned into a Netflix mini-series, get ready for the next big binge hit:  The Adventures of Jason and Gary! A new mini-series about two reporters from competing publications who covered the diabolical twists and turns of an entertainment community’s local government. Despite the passionate competition between their publications, the two reporters gain a high level of respect for each other’s work and become friends.

Yes, believe it or not, even before I joined the Globe I would read Gary’s stories and columns, and he would read mine. We appreciated each other’s approaches while many times we disagreed on the final outcome or the path to a similar result. The rest of the Globe I didn’t really read since it was, well, the enemy (hey, Publisher Rob, you want honesty in our columns, right?) 

So now that we’re on the same pages, I have a unique situation: I can directly challenge Gary or mention his column in my column! Such is with Gary’s column of Sept. 4 called “The beauty of hardheaded community conversation.” It’s a fine piece of work talking about the importance of communities having the hard conversation about the things which have vital impact. 

He had a great point about the importance of honest, frank, serious discussions about the challenges which face the community. He said, for which I agree, disagreement is vital because brainwashed agreement on all issues is not only dangerous but a sign of weak minds. To quote the Ole Seagull: “Disagreement is not a sign of division; rather, it is a sign of interest, of investment and of a community that refuses to fall asleep at the wheel” and “A noisy community is a living community, and that is a beautiful thing.”

So, you may wonder, if I agree with him, why would I write a column where I say I’m a little critical of him?

Look, Gary’s a good guy. He will challenge people on some issues. He doesn’t seek to tick people off by getting in their faces with some rather blunt allegations.

I, however, have no such compunction.

Gary is absolutely right; we need community discussion.

I have also seen a number of people in our community incapable of these kinds of discussions, but it doesn’t stop them from derailing the kind of honest discussions Gary is correct our community needs to hold.

A case in point: at my previous place of wordsmithing, I had written a column questioning if our current sitting governor was campaigning while Lt. Governor on the dime of taxpayers by appearing at many public events for which the governor himself would usually attend. I had noticed an uptick of appearances by this candidate at places the sitting governor had reliably appeared over his time in office. It raised the question about whether or not state funds were being used in a run-around for campaign finance regulations.

A letter to the editor arrives from a local supporter of said politician who proceeded to attack me, attack the paper, mention all kind of other situations. People praised the letter writer for it. The letter author never actually addressed the real issue; but someone questioned their beloved candidate so they must attack.

That is what I’m bringing up here because those kinds of actions are the very thing which will poison what Gary wants to see thrive in our community.

We have reached the point where lies, disinformation, distortion, distraction and in some cases even bullying and threats of legal action are derailing the hard discussions which need to be had by residents about the future of Branson. How?

By those hostile and deceitful actions being praised and honored and cheered on by the people on “their” side. 

We have large amounts of voters and residents who once they’ve chosen a side on an issue, want to see destruction of those who disagree with them. No compromise. No discussion. You either submit to what you’re being told, or you’re an enemy who must be put down in any way possible. 

Lie about the person’s personal life? No problem. 

Lie about something they said or did?  No problem.

Make up false information about a situation and then attack based on the lies? Sounds good.

As long as you destroy any threat to what you want, it’s just fine.

The worst part? Most people don’t even realize they’re doing it because they’ve been conditioned so much over the last few years.

We talk a lot about “faith, family and flag” and the importance of Christianity in our area. If that’s really the case, we should be the first to reject deceptive and dishonest political and social discussions. We should be the first to disagree with political opposition without wishing them harm in some way because Jesus said to love your enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, right? 

Gary is entirely right; we need to have some hard discussions about the direction and future of Branson.

I just hope we can all come together and have those discussions in a manner and method which truly reflects the people we say we are and not turn those chats into little more than a real-life Facebook post comment section.