For those who think Democracy should be
a collaborative experience.
September 29, 2008
More Presidential ~ Grace under Fire
Unite and Concur took on Divide and Conquer at the first presidential debate. The post debate spin was clear that John McCain came across as more combative and Barrack Obama came across as more conciliatory. McCain hit attack and did not engage Obama directly, while Obama looked to McCain as he spoke and acknowledged points of agreement. The McCain campaign had an ad out before midnight showing a medley of clips of Obama telling McCain where he agreed with him. The McCain campaign clearly thought the acknowledgement would make Obama look weak, and many Obama supporters voiced the same concern. Some suggested that Obama showed grace under fire, and wondered if that would play well on Main street.
The debate tested Unite and Concur principles, and it passed the test.
Obama was regarded as appearing “more presidential” by 46% of debate watchers, in contrast to the 33% who regarded McCain as more presidential.
As the author of Unite and Concur, I encourage all of us to show grace under fire and to appear presidential when our political ideas are challenged. The verdict is in and the polls have shown – grace under fire and a collaborative approach to dialogue is effective.
September 10, 2008We’ll fact-check that
Ever get caught by unlikely arguments that you don’t know how to dispute? Dont argue facts, research them. Tell the perpetrator:
- We’ll fact-check that.
If you wish they’d think more like you do, you need to be able to think like they do
If you can’t comprehend how anyone could have been moved to tears of joy by Obama’s acceptance speech and tears of sadness by Palins, you’re probably not ready to persuade any Obama supporters to consider your views. And if you cannot fathom why Governeor Palin galvaized the GOP, you’re probably not ready to get any mcCain / Palin supporters to consider your perspective.
You don’t have to agree with their views to be able to stand in a place where you can clearly see them. But you do need to be willing to see what they see to have any influence at all.
I like the phrase the Difficult Conversations authors suggest. Ask yourself, “why would a reasonable person say that?”
Ultimately you might find they aren’t so reasonable after all. But your chances of being politically persuasive are much better if you start with the assumption that they are. And even if they’re not, it’s helpful to be able to get inside of their (non)reality if you’re hoping to inspire them into yours.
If you want anyone to think more like you do, you need to be able to think more like they do.
I have ten guidellines to reasonable dialogue in this article.
September 8, 2008Spinspotter ~ technology to keep the news honest
A web application is about to be released that will use algorithms to catch the spin that your gut misses.
It’s called Spinspotter, and it reviews web pages based on guidelines provided by Society of Professional Journalists’ Code Of Ethics, and rates them for web content.
I look forward to reading it’s rating of my own writing…I think.
The first step to political persuasiveness ~ stay calm
I once read instructions on an elevator about what to do in the case of emergency. Step one was to stay calm. I thought - that’s a step?
Yes, it is. And it’s the first step in politiclal persuasiveness.
Today I heard an interview with a lawyer who is filing lawsuits citing egrecious political corruption. He calmly described all the charges he was filing, the obstacles he was up against and the outrageousness of the offenses. He was clearly passionate about his endeavor - and yet he sounded calm.
His tone created a sense of calm in me, and a sense of confidence. This man was realistic - and he came across as highly competent.
I like the phrase “despair is not an option.” It’s not. When you despair, you weaken yourself. The wise take the ups and downs in stride, pursuing evenly toward their goal.
So take the first step toward political persuasiveness. Stay clam.
I do question his judgment
I read a post by Lanny Davis about a distinction he learned to make from his political opposite, John McCain. Davis asked McCain why he refused to shake his hand. McCain said, “Because I’ve seen you on TV and I don’t like the way you attack Ken Starr’s motives rather than his judgment. I don’t like your type of attack dog in politics.”
Davis heard his point and the next time he was interviewed, he said,
“While I do not question Mr. Starr’s sincerity or good faith, I do question his judgment” before he made his point.
The next time he met McCain, McCain shook his hand and acknowledged Davis’ improved wording. he said, “You made the distinction between personal attack and questioning judgment. I congratulate you and apologize for my rudeness the last time we met.”
Whether you think McCain walks his own talk these days or not, I hope you’ll agree this is a distinction we should encourage.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- More Presidential ~ Grace under Fire
- What not to say ~ “How does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?”
- Firestorms over show hosts Imus, Shuster and Rhodes’ suspensions illustrate confusion over aggression and assertiveness
- Blog guidelines: How to start a reasonable dialogue about reasonable dialogue
- Poison Phrase ~ If you believe that, you’ll believe anything
Get real ~ Unintended transparency
It’s a bit like when you hit “reply all” to an email that was intended only for a few. Political consultants Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught on mike in a candid discussion of their opinions of John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin for Vice President.
They describe the selection of Palin as cynical.
What is cynical is how readily moderator Chuck Todd and the general public accept the disparity between what is said on the air and what people really believe.
What if they – and we – were all caught on mike telling the truth? How about transparency being the norm, not a rare glimpse behind the curtain of deception? Our leaders might not be able to model it for us, but I’d love for us to give it a try. When you see how readily people fall in line and defend their side, it seems clear – someone’s toting the party line. We all do it in some ways – and that’s destructive to the democratic process.
September 2, 2008Get real ~ You can wish your candidate had more experience AND still support him or her
Get real. In life there’s middle ground. People who don’t acknowledge weakness or limits in their candidates don’t sound credible - and don’t give any room to “Unite and Concur.”
I heard a politician make a non-credible case for the experience level of her candidate. I thought - why not just say:
- I’d prefer Candidate X had more experience, but the policies and accomplishments override my concerns about that.
Unite and Concur outlines logical fallacies - and black and white, either/or, absolute thinking and arguments that gloss over nuances and distinctions. This kind of argument is unreal.
So get real. You can wish your candidate had more experience AND still support them. Lose the absolute thinking and put forth honest arguments.
Unite and Concur Pressroom