By Mary Beth West, APR
The shooting in Tucson of this past weekend involving Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other victims has shocked the nation and immediately thrown the national dialogue into self-analysis. What caused this?
As more facts come to light over what may have motivated alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner, the past 48 hours of media analysis have centered heavily on today’s mainstay political rhetoric as the culprit du jour, driving an unbalanced person to extreme behavior. Or, some say, maybe the guy was just plain crazy.
Whatever prompted this violence, it has turned the national conversation – for a little while anyway – to the topic of how different political views are communicated and related on the national stage.
There have been widespread calls for more respectful discourse. But what does that mean, exactly? What kinds of better practices must political campaigns and their media platforms put into practice – and what better practices should the American people start expecting to see – if this call for respect and civility is to happen?
I have observed in the past election year that passionate debate is the right of every American citizen and American institution, perhaps from a Southern school of thought akin to “get out of the kitchen if you can’t take the heat.” To me, real debate is a big part of what makes this country great.
The problem for so many Americans – and practically everyone with a visible media soapbox, it seems – is that there are no universally accepted tactical ground rules for debate anymore. Anything goes. And not only is that “anything” accepted, in so many instances, it’s celebrated. The worse the behavior, the better the ratings.
Regarding how people of varying viewpoints express their opinions, there are several tell-tale communications tactics that almost always slide down the slope of unnecessary antagonism.
So if we want more respectful discourse – if we want to get serious about it – we might start demanding better behavior on these points:
*Responsible use of symbols. Since the dawn of intelligent humankind, there have been few elements more powerful in human communication than graphic symbols. Flags, mascots, logos, icons . . . they all have the power to emote in milliseconds tremendous passions and emotions with the flash of a simple visual piece.
Responsible use of symbols and metaphorical references should be foremost in the mindset of any campaign or entity that wishes to achieve credibility. Part of being responsible means acknowledging, understanding and respecting how certain symbols can hold dual or multiple meanings, depending on the life experiences and contexts of the receiving audiences, as well as the power to motivate some people toward both intended and unintended action.
In my view, political campaigns and figures, and of course any individual, organization or entity, should have the full right to use whatever symbols or choice of words they want to express themselves. There have been calls in the media for certain campaigns not to be “allowed” to use certain imagery, particularly those involving weaponry. That kind of talk is, however, almost as disturbing to me as seeing the crosshairs on the political map and whatnot. We don’t need to be policing the language. People and entities should be able to say whatever they want, however misguided it might be. After all, how else might the public better see and discern how misguided some people are?
*Acknowledgement of good intent and intelligence by an opponent. Such an unpleasant underlying subtext to many debates, particularly on cable television, is, “my intentions are good and pure, and this other person just wants to rob you blind.” Rarely does there exist any point in the conversation where either side acknowledges, “We both want a good and fair outcome on this issue – but we have very different approaches toward what the outcome should be or how to achieve it.”
Sadly, most campaigns and political leaders fail to understand the power of extending an olive branch . . . that doing so can demonstrate a maturity that the American public absolutely thirsts for in leadership and that also can result in a disarming effect that allows a far more cogent conversation to happen.
Just as disappointing, media moderators are often egregiously inept at shepherding a debate toward any kind of thoughtful analysis, inclusive of both points of agreement and disagreement. To wit, some of them take great delight in stoking contentions to no productive end whatsoever, and then look beseechingly into the camera over the course of this past weekend, asking “Can’t we all just get along?” They, too, should be pointed out for the unhelpful roles they play.
*Calling out the premeditated Catch-22s. In Washington, it’s the growth industry: one side of a debate setting up the other side for a no-win situation, particularly one that causes (and is intended to cause) deep and very public harm, and often in a manner that is either unwarranted, unfair or both. These types of scenarios play themselves out in countless ways, with a wide range of ethical questions and breaches involved.
My personal favorite is always the righteous indignation of one congressman against another for voting against XYZ bill, when Congressman 1 knows full well that Congressman 2 didn’t vote for it because of all the unacceptable, unacknowledged line items cram-packed into the legislation. Just one in a sea of examples . . . but it’s that kind of stuff that poisons trust and trustworthiness. And where there is no trust, there can be no meaningful civility.
Changes in our media culture would be welcomed, and the Tucson tragedy is one event with power to enact it, at least at a small level. It’s my hope that a groundswell of people who want change in public discourse, and who know what specific types of change need to happen, will speak up and influence those with the greatest capacity to achieve it.
