It’s Time to Embrace Constructive Dissent

 Editors Note: Steven Buck is a lifelong Oklahoma and a former cabinet secretary of two Oklahoma gubernatorial administrations. He is currently President and CEO of Care Providers Oklahoma and a co-owner of MentaliTea and Coffee. Buck plans to use this platform to share thoughts on leadership, relationship building, places of interest and periodic sport commentary.

 

One of the best “people” lessons I have learned (and still refining) is how to embrace constructive dissent. It is a management principle that has great value for societal health. A simple search on the internet of academic articles and research will produce a myriad of thought-provoking articles on the subject. One of my favorites is an article published in the Harvard Business Review.

As I have advanced in my career, volunteer endeavors, family business, and relationally with family and friends, incorporating the tenants of this practice into the rhythm of communication has been a focal point for me. It has not always been easy, but I have found that often it has led to better decisions, stronger relationships, and an incredible peace of mind.

I focused on constructive dissent purposefully this week as we are on the eve of the 2022 mid-term elections. For my home state of Oklahoma, this election season has been particularly divisive. From conversations with friends and colleagues from across the country and from a scan of trusted news sources, the same appears true for states across our nation. Elections are becoming harder and harder and are exacting a tremendous toll on our collective psyche. A wedge is developing between friends, families and communities, and I really do not know how we rehabilitate these fractures. I do believe, though, that the application of constructive dissent is one of the remedies that is most likely to succeed.

On Tuesday in Oklahoma’s races, I will have many friends on the ballot for a myriad of political offices. And by friends I do not mean simple acquaintances; these are people that I have known for years, worked for, worked with, and collaboratively dreamed about what Oklahoma can be for its residents. I have agreed passionately with some of their ideas and found myself 180 degrees opposed to others. Collectively, they are both Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban residents, and adherents to many different policy beliefs. Beyond those descriptors, though, the most important to me is that they are friends. I value each of them first through that lens. At some level, everything else is just noise. 

What does this have to do with constructive dissent? To me, the answer is clear: everything. 

Somewhere along the way our lens has become clouded on what the electoral process really is. It has become a battleground of oppositional dissent where the intent is to tear down with little attention to building together.  Election season should bring constructive dissent to the forefront where we press each other to refine our viewpoints and advance the success of communities for the broader good.  

I live in northwest Oklahoma City and work in the midtown area. For my morning commute I have four go-to options in terms of my route. And I rotate them periodically just for the sake of variety. But when I pause and think about it, four routes are just a fraction of the ways to get where I need to go. I would argue that the same is true in policy development. There are numerous pathways with lots of variables that might determine the best or fastest. Electors and candidates should spend election season teasing out the collective best path forward and jump-starting the policy making process when the election season concludes.

It is my observation that, unfortunately, election season has become a practice of homogenous messaging driven by campaign strategists (and many of those are my friends, too) that aspire to deliver victories over sifting through the viewpoints of constituents to determine the collective path forward? Oversimplification? Absolutely. But it does ring true. What other reason would explain my mailbox full of campaign literature outlining key positions of candidates in areas of policy that I have no enthusiastic commitment? Or, for the more prominent races, ad after ad attacking the opponent.

We have a lot of work in front of us to bring principles of constructive dissent back to election season. In some ways the legislative process itself has this practice in its rhythm but it seldom plays out in actual policy making. I am quite sure strong majority caucuses seldom if ever collectively engage the minority party in policy development and in the rare cases they do, they are frequently superficial. That is not a critique of our state’s current majority legislature; I am old enough to know that the same was absolutely true of our state when the current minority party was in control.

To close, let me encourage all of us to work harder on a spirit of constructive dissent in our electoral process. Do your part when you engage those on the ballot into talking through policy issues as opposed to spouting talking points and the latest commentators’ rants. I promise, real dialogue on real issues will leave you encouraged. Good people can disagree. It is OK. And it is healthy if disagreement is not the end of an engagement but instead a part of relational rhythm.

Parting note: a heartfelt thank you to all candidates for having the courage to put your name on the ballot. I wish blessings for you and for your family minimal disruption to the most important of our relational rhythms. I might disagree with you on some issues, but I respect and value you for stepping forward and answering the call.