Have you ever been afraid to comment on a political issue because you knew it was divisive? When someone asks you how you feel about a topic in the news, do you instinctively shudder and wish they had not even brought it up?

Since you are reading this column, the above predicaments might not apply to you. Unfortunately, I fear that most people loathe discussing current affairs. They are so fearful of how a person might react to their opinions that they censor themselves. They may think to themselves: “Not even been going to go there.”

When enough people feel this way, a silence begins to emerge. If the silence grows, public dialogue begins to disappear. If public dialogue vanishes, then our democracy becomes privatized. The only safe place to express your political thoughts is the secrecy of your vote.

This is not how American democracy is supposed to work. Our political system is based on a free exchange of ideas. It should not be crippled by a widespread fear of publicly expressing your thoughts. However much I wish it were different, I find many people fearful of openly talking about Question 1 and the Iraq war.

Question 1 is a people’s veto question that would overturn a 2005 state law that added sexual orientation to the list of protected legal categories in which discrimination is illegal. The issue is very emotional for many people. Religious conservatives want to veto the law because they imply that it “normalizes” homosexual relationships. Many others, including gay rights advocates, want the law to stand. Equality, plain and simple, is the core value for them.

To each side, the issue is a “no-brainer.” The yes side argues that religious freedom is being targeted. The no side uses the Civil Rights movement as its cornerstone. Some on the yes side imply that the law sanctions irresponsibility and relativism. Some on the no side call their opponents ignorant, bigoted and hateful.

The Iraq war also stirs up deep emotions. One side believes that we got into the war as a result of lies and exaggerations. To them, the war has been a tragic miscalculation. An exit strategy is needed now. On the other side, the key issues are courage and decisiveness. Our country has no choice but to finish the job in Iraq and weaken the terrorists. A strong nation doesn’t “cut and run.”

Supporters might cite history for their cause. The Western appeasement of Hitler allowed his evil to spread until a world war was inevitable. Thus radical Islam must be defeated now before it spreads so wide that a “clash of civilizations” is inevitable. Skeptics might also refer to history. Vietnam was “lost” years before we pulled out our last troops. It was only pride that prolonged our presence. We should just acknowledge that Iraq is now “lost,” and, in the process, save many future American lives.

On both of these contentious issues, the most difficult thing for each side to recognize is that they may not have a monopoly on good intentions and the truth. What many can’t even allow into their consciousness is the thought that some of their opponents may be making their stand in good faith. Perhaps even more frightening is the notion that there may be an element of truth in some of their arguments.

I want to emphasize the word “may” because it is the critical word that allows public dialogue to function. “May” implies an acceptance of uncertainty and a willingness to live with a certain degree of ambiguity. If we all were so sure of the righteousness of our cause and the purity of our intentions, then dialogue would not be necessary. Instead, we would all simply preach to each other. There would be no meaningful public dialogue on important issues.

The sad reality is that the structure of our political system often demands binary choices to more complicated realities. Can the complexity of human sexuality be truthfully and fully represented as a simple yes or no on the November ballot? I think not. Can the intricacy of international relations be accurately exemplified as being either for or against the Iraq war? Hardly.

Where does that leave us? We are stuck with considering these issues in the framework of a dualistic illusion. This means that publicly stating your position is going to be risky. You will almost inevitably be stereotyped and potentially misunderstand.

However, there is a beautiful aspect of public dialogue. If you can tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity, both within yourself and in others, then you can open yourself up to different perspectives. This doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning your individual values. Instead, if you are courageous enough to publicly state your views, you help our community exercise our collective democratic body. In that way, we all win.

Karl Trautman has taught political science for more than 20 years. He has been a policy analyst for the Michigan legislature and a research assistant for “Meet The Press.” He chairs the Social Sciences Department at Central Maine Community College and can be reached at [email protected].