The Definite Article

Dissent is a different animal entirely. Dissent takes place between two partners attempting to reach a consensus or find a common ground. The consensus may never be reached and the common ground may be non-existent, but the term implies a willingness to work towards some common goals.

Dissent, like assent and consent, comes from the Latin root sentre, meaning to feel. Dissent is when two parties feel differently. Consent used to mean to be of the same mind (to share feelings, as in con- sentre) and assent used means to aquiesce and implies thoughtful apathy, possibly a hold over from the Latin ad- sentre, to move away from feeling. Assent and consent now both carry a denotation of broad agreement, although in usage consent seems to be applied more to groups ("the consent of the governed") and assent to individuals ("He asked for her hand in marriage and she granted her assent.")

Etymology aside, dissent is missing from modern discourse. Actual dissent, in which thoughtful propositions are brought out for examination, inspected and tabled, rejected or accepted in due course, feels too much like equivocation for the shrill partisans who rule the roost. And frankly, watching two people who wish to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty come to an agreement makes for shitty TV even though it makes for good governance.

I mention this because there is a man running for President of the United States named Howard Dean. He is the former governor of Vermont, a largely white New England state that allows citizens to carry concealed firearms, is the home to Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and is one of the oldest States of the Union. He has taken the country by storm and is headed for a Democratic nomination in first the Iowa caucuses tomorrow and then a likely victory in New Hampshire the following week.

Howard Dean claims the mantle of dissent. This is disengenuous. Instead, he has disagreed and shows no sign of desiring a rapprochement with either the current administration or with followers of Bill Clinton. This plays well in Liberal San Francisco but not so well in suburban Illinois. The stance is politically suicidal - but that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that it is absent of dissent.

Howard Dean disagrees loudest with the sitting President not over the budget or America's relationship with the rest of the world, but instead has stated that the capture of Saddam Hussein will not make America any safer and that he doesn't think Osama bin Laden was behind the September 11th bombing. This is in addition to vehemently opposing the war in Iraq, a position that is increasingly untenable as chemical weapons are found buried in the desert by the Danes, Saddam Hussein is captured and the occupying forces prepare to turn the governing of Iraq over to Iraqis.

Furthermore, he has criticized Clinton for representing the Republican wing of the Democratic party, in spite of the fact that he was simultaneously the most popular Democrat since FDR and presided over a great American economic expansion (part of this expansion was bogus - Enron, dot-coms, telecomms overinvestment; an article for a separate essay).

So Howard Dean has attacked people to his left and to his right with vituperative language rather than appealing to the common ground he may share with them. For instance, he could point out to southerners that he favors gun ownership while pointing out to the coasts that he would have liked to have seen greater respect for international multilateralism in the approach to the second Gulf War. These things are true and make sense. It's a shame they don't make for good TV.

Bush, on the other hand, has done this to some extent. He's met the AARP and related lobby better than halfway with a prescription drug reform that threatens outrageous deficits and put into action primary and secondary educational reform of noble purpose although doubtful efficacy. Both were more than his predeccessor was able to acheive in the same areas, despite enormous effort.

In closing, I'd like to thank my sister, Mara, who has been so willing to engage in genuine dissent, disagreeing when her principles so demand to whatever drivel I might have a notion to publish here and agreeing when she thinks the same. It's an intellectual honesty that I wish all Americans had. It's sad that we cannot even bring ourselves to voice agreement even when we genuinely agree, lest we be seen as traitors to the cause. When Anne Coulter and Michael Moore can sit down, share a bagel and find some common ground, I'll allow my hope to be restored.

---

On to Edinburgh. Well, I finally just up and did it: I resigned from my current position, even though I love working for ThruPoint, deeply admire the senior leadership and agree wholeheartedly with the mission of helping companies to find ways to leverage their investments in technology to find greater returns. It takes special people to understand the marriage between IT and cost reduction, revenue generation and productivity increase; so many of the people that I've met that see how to use technology as a lubricant to the wheels of commerce and industry are at ThruPoint that it seems as though they have a monopoly. I'll miss them, the mentorship they gave me and I'll miss the way we felt like family.

However, I need to be in Edinburgh. Anyone who has lived there will tell you the same. I can remember making fun of a High School Girlfriend, Emily Stowe, for taking a year abroad in Edinburgh.

"It's cold and it rains all the time!" I said. "It's far away; you'll get homesick. And it's as far north as Moscow! It'll get pitch black in winter."

Well, I was 3 for 4. It's cold and rains all the time, it's pitch black in winter and it's as far north as Moscow. However, it's also the most beautiful English speaking city in the world; Prague is better looking, but I don't speak Czech and the restaurants are better in Edinburgh.

I didn't get homesick - until I left. Since then, I've known I wasn't finished with the city, or she wasn't finished with me, or vice versa.

Sincerely,
- Nathan