By Robin Kostrikin
For many years, I have tried to understand the conflicts in the Middle East by listening to as many voices as possible. I have spoken with Israelis, Palestinians in Gaza, anti-war activists, journalists, Syrians, Iranians, and people from across the political spectrum in the United States and abroad. I have studied the history of the region before the creation of the State of Israel and followed the conflicts that have unfolded since. I have relatives who lived in Israel, others who lived in Tehran during the era of the Shah, and family connections that extend to Syria, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, South America, mainland China, and Australia.
Because of those experiences, I have become increasingly skeptical of simple narratives and political talking points. One of the most troubling aspects of American political discourse today is how quickly people are pushed into opposing camps. Nearly every issue is framed as a battle between left and right, Democrat and Republican, pro-Trump and anti-Trump. Meanwhile, larger questions often go unasked.
Who benefits from keeping Americans divided?
What policies advance while citizens are distracted by endless partisan conflict?
For years, I have contacted elected officials regarding U.S. military interventions, endless wars, and the trillions of dollars that Pentagon auditors have struggled to fully account for and secret CIA Black OPS programs. I have attended protests and spoken out against foreign policies that have contributed to instability and suffering around the world.
I often wonder what happened to the anti-war movement. Many Americans who passionately opposed military interventions during the Bush years seemed far less vocal when similar policies continued under subsequent administrations. Political loyalty often appeared to replace principle. Opposition to war sometimes seemed dependent on which party occupied the White House rather than on the human consequences of those policies.
The same pattern can be seen in discussions about Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, Gaza, and other conflicts. Civilian suffering should matter regardless of who is responsible. Human rights should not become important only when they align with a preferred political narrative.
Questions about foreign aid, government accountability, corruption, weapons transfers, and intelligence operations are often dismissed rather than debated openly. At the same time, much of our political discourse revolves around the latest controversy involving President Trump. One result of Trump’s continued rhetoric and ad absurdum is that more people on both sides of the political spectrum no longer support the sphere of influence by Israel and AIPAC.
Whether one supports Trump or opposes him, it is worth asking whether the constant focus on his personality has distracted the public from broader questions about war, government transparency, civil liberties, economic stability, and institutional accountability.
I observed a similar dynamic during the COVID era. Reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness of particular public health measures. However, that period demonstrated how quickly fear can shape public behavior and how difficult it can be to have open discussions during times of crisis. It also revealed how willing many people are to defer their judgment to authorities rather than critically evaluate competing viewpoints and policies including our elected officials.
The same concerns about transparency, accountability, and public participation that exist at the national level also exist closer to home. That is why I am concerned about the lack of civic engagement in our own community.
How many residents regularly follow county government?
How many are paying attention to the current district attorney issue?
How many attend public meetings, submit testimony, or communicate with elected officials?
How many understand the decisions being made that directly affect their daily lives?
The recent commissioner election demonstrated how divided and disengaged our county has become. More than half of registered voters did not participate. Numerous write-in votes were cast, and many non-affiliated voters chose not to participate in the commissioner race at all. Those numbers do not reflect a healthy and engaged community. They suggest frustration, disconnection, and declining trust in local government.
Trust cannot be rebuilt through campaign slogans or public relations statements. It requires transparency, accessibility, accountability, and genuine engagement. For years, residents have requested evening county meetings so working families can participate. Yet little progress has been made.
Recently, I contacted officials in another Oregon county and learned that they successfully conduct regular evening meetings that attract participation from working residents and rural communities. I gave contact information for the commissioner I spoke with to the county who told me she would help in whatever way she could. Will they act on it? This county also employs a public information officer who provides regular updates and communications to the public and plans to do town halls again.
These are not revolutionary ideas. They are practical steps designed to improve transparency and public trust. Our commissioners should actively seek opportunities to engage residents through evening meetings, town halls, community meet-and-greets throughout the county, regular public updates, and meaningful responses to citizen concerns. Government should not wait for residents to come forward; it should make every effort to reach out to the people it serves.
When concerns go unanswered, frustration grows. When citizens feel ignored, participation declines. When participation declines, trust erodes. The result is the cycle we see today: increasing division, decreasing civic involvement, and growing dissatisfaction with public institutions.
Breaking that cycle requires leadership. It requires elected officials who are willing to listen, communicate openly, and demonstrate that public input matters. Most importantly, it requires citizens who are willing to become engaged rather than remain spectators.
The future of our community will not be determined solely by what happens in Washington, D.C., Jerusalem, Tehran, Moscow, or Kyiv, or even at the state level. It will be determined by whether local citizens choose to participate in the institutions closest to them and whether those institutions are willing to earn the trust of the people they serve.
That is where real change begins.
