For those who think Democracy should be
a collaborative experience.
October 7, 2008
Change the subject back
it’s odd to watch pundits ask if political candidates will be able to change the subject of national dialogue as if they have no role in allowing it to happen.
But it’s stranger still when we as citizens, we who have everything to lose and nothing to gain by poliitcal theater and distractions when we face serious real issues, allow our attention to be redirected to some bright shiney object when we have so much we could and should be talking about.
Politicians attempt to talk about what they want to, but we need to keep our conversation focused on what matters to us.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- Poison Phrase ~ If you believe that, you’ll believe anything
- Communication Question – talking with your political opposite
- Inclusive prom policy – or over-protective?
- Congressman Lee Hamilton’s advice to the consensus-starved
- Across party lines ~ Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Unite and Concur on Climate Change
We need another time out
Candidates are not responsible for what their supporters say at campaign events, but they do send a strong message when they allow supporters to advocate violence toward their opposition. If your candidate is letting chants like “kill” and “terrorist” and “B#*&%@” go unchallenged, please call a campaign office to complain.
Rudy Giuliani deomnstrated how to do this in 2006, when a supporter interrupted him to say terrorists reminded him of Democrats. Giuliani stopped and said, “Time out. The other thing we have to learn is that we can’t get into this partisan bickering. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats have the same objectives…. Democrats are loyal Americans. Republicans are loyal Americans. I think we have better answers, but we have to respect each other.”
We all need to call for a time out when the hateful raging goes over the top. And if it’s your onwn candidate you’re challenging, all the better.
Why are you excited about your candidate?
A friend canvasses for her presidential candidate. She told me when people tell her they’re voting for the other candidate, she says,
- I’m excited about my candidate for so many reasons. I’d like to know: why are you excited about yours?
She says people rarely have specific reasons to explain their choice (if they admit to be excited at all.) It gets some to rethink their positions.
Of course, to avoid being a manipulative tactic, my friend needs to be sincere in her questioning and interest. She is.
Poison Phrase ~ If you believe that, you’ll believe anything
It was a political conversation, but this kind of attack happens in business and personal conversations. When Julie disagreed with Lorrie’s opinion about a national policy, instead of addressing the issue directly, Julie said,
- If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
It’s called attacking the messenger, and it’s a bully tool to end reasonable dialogue. Respond by saying,
I offered a sincere opinion and you replied by painting me as gullible. Please point out the flaws in the argument instead of me.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- If you wish they’d think more like you do, you need to be able to think like they do
- Blog guidelines: How to start a reasonable dialogue about reasonable dialogue
- A Political First Date – What not to say
- Communication Question – talking with your political opposite
- Reader question ~Who’s entitled to an opinion?
Unite and Concur Pressroom