Tags
compromise, debate, Democracy, Dr. David Adler, Five Modest Suggestions, Idaho, Luna laws, politics, public opinion, public policy, reasoned discourse
How can we collaborate in a sea of sharks? Before we can begin to influence public policy, we need to shape public opinion. Individually we are little more than pesky voices shouting into the wind. But when we join forces our power multiplies exponentially and that is how public opinion grows legs.
Before we can hold our leaders accountable, we must be accountable to ourselves and to each other. We must rediscover the lost art of negotiation. Compromise is not a dirty word. Compromise is the only way that a democracy can work. There is absolutely no possibility of meeting each individual’s agenda in a country comprised of over 316,000,000 people with myriad colors, religions, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds.
Below I paraphrase Dr. David Adler, author and national lecturer specializing in public law, the Supreme Court, the Presidency and American political thought, in what he calls Five Modest Suggestions to Improve Public Discourse.
- Stop Political Labeling: It is all too easy to hang a label on a person or an idea but labels are the lazy way of dealing with complex issues. By dismissing a person for a perceived (or real) ideology we come to the negotiation table with closed minds and closed ears. This prevents the second item.
- Listen: Listen carefully to what the opposition has to say because you may find some point of commonality from which you can build mutual understanding and perhaps craft a completely new stance that could satisfy both sides of the coin. Today’s opponents may be tomorrow’s ally.
- Be Fair to Each Other: Again, today’s opponents may be tomorrow’s ally. If we alienate each other, compromise becomes impossible. Listening breaks down. Constructive dialogue requires truth and honesty. Don’t lie about or to an opponent. Don’t mix up or convolute the facts of an opposing position. Successful negotiation comes about through persuasion, not through duplicity or bullying. Don’t allow:
- Distortions
- Demagoguery (emotional pleas based on prejudice and fear)
- Snake Oil
- Avoid the Politics of Destruction: Again, today’s opponents may be tomorrow’s ally! If we demonize an opponent it is that much harder to find common ground or to join forces when we do find common ground.
- Politics is not war
- Words are not bullets.
- Avoid Rigidity: Good public policy is fluid, able to shift with changing demographics, needs, and applications. Compromise is the only way we can make democracy work in a country with 316,000,000 different points of view. Compromise is impossible in the face of rigid thinking.
Reasoned Discourse requires understanding and accepting the scientific method. Just as we must listen to other points of view, we must also support our arguments with factual evidence, not with hyperbole, rumor, or wishful thinking.
Shaping Public Policy requires us to demonstrate to others how our ideas will benefit them. Once we have learned to talk openly and honesty with each other in small groups, and have learned to listen for that which unites rather than that which divides, then we can implement a unified voice to shape public policy through fact based letters to the editor and emails and phone calls to our representatives. Legislators are powerless against rising popular opinion. Numbers talk!
In Idaho, the top-down implementation of the Luna laws (among other things) offended Democrats. The purchase of expensive technology required by the Luna laws (among other things) offended Republicans. Each side had a vested interest in undoing that legislation and by working with each other rather than against each other, education policy that the Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction had lobbied hard to put in place was successfully unraveled.
As an example of what I consider reasoned discourse, I offer the following link to an opinion offered by an Idaho official regarding a highly controversial topic in our state. The article appeared in the Idaho Statesman on January 29, 2014.Lawrence Schoen: Idaho needs a new wolf management structure
Where do you look for information upon which to base your decisions and beliefs?
btg5885 said:
Linda, David Adler’s comments are on point. I am constantly reminding myself to focus on the issues in my emails and letters to the editors and politicians. And, Barney and I often speak of using data and asking for an opposing voice’s data. Some do not have any. But, the point of being civil is important, even when you do not get it in return. Great piece and follow-on to your first one, BTG
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Thanks. It is a challenge to be civil in these days of knee jerk sound bytes and one-upsmanship-name-calling.
LikeLike
btg5885 said:
Linda, I shared with Barney, I had three or four emails with a legislator who tends not to use pleasantries at the beginning or end of his replies. To his credit he did answer, but he would also use anecdotes only in response to data I offered. His modus operandi was to tell me I was wrong. Each time, I thanked him for his response and tried my utmost to be cordial in my responses. Yet, it struck me that our roles seemed reversed. I want to contrast that with a moderate member of his party who also took the time to respond, yet is very cordial and shares where he agrees and disagrees. That is a class act and is all I can ask. Many thanks, BTG
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
You deserve a badge of courage for trying to interact with a sealed mind. But you have given that legislator every opportunity to elevate his approach. I suspect he lacks the intelligence or education to know the difference between anecdote and factual data.. Perhaps you can use your series of failed communications with this person, to unseat him in a future election. You don’t need to say anything negative. Just let his responses to your questions do the talking.:-)
Keep up the good work. Your determination is inspiring.
LikeLike
Glenda Hornig said:
Very good article Linda. Compromise, good listening skills and respect for other opinions should be the basis of all debates!
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Yes, and so much easier said than done. I think there are some individuals with whom we just can never get to that level. You and I and Cindy know one in particular! 😦
LikeLike
Snoring Dog Studio said:
Sigh. This is a very difficult task, Linda. The words are spot on; I just wonder how we make the baby steps to get there.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
It’s tough breaking open sealed minds. And I’m not really sure it’s possible to break through some of them. I guess the best we can hope for is to elevate our own rhetoric and lead by example and fight canned labels with facts. . . which unfortunately are too complex for some minds to grasp.
LikeLike
btg5885 said:
Linda, I wanted you to know I did get a couple of very supportive notes from like-minded legislators. It is always nice to see those. I just need to put on my Don Quixote armour for the others. Take care, BTG
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Good for you and your persistence. It helps to have a few members of the choir to shore you up against the others! Well done.
LikeLike
Otto von Münchow said:
You have a good point, Linda. We need to start with ourselves instead of pointing the finger at others. And Dr. David Adler five modest suggestions to improve public discourse is a good place to start. Great post!
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Thanks, Otto. I think I’m probably preaching to my choir here.
LikeLike
bronxboy55 said:
This post made me realize how far we’ve strayed, Linda. In the strange world of politics, changing your mind — which usually involves learning — is considered to be a weakness. Opponents search for points of difference and hammer away at those, instead of looking for common ground on which to build something useful. As you said, “Compromise is the only way that a democracy can work.”
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Yes, we tend to get so committed to our own righteousness that we shut out all possibilities of what could be. We lose vision and imagination. It is very hard to act rationally when we feel intensely about the issues.
LikeLike
reneejohnsonwrites said:
Civilized discourse used to be the rule of the day. How far we have strayed! Rigidity is encouraged by the talking heads on television. It’s gotten so nasty and the truth can be so twisted it doesn’t even resemble the facts. You should send this to congress. They need to read it.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Hah. Funny idea. I’m not sure they remember how to read…. Oh, there I go, being flippant and uncivilized. It’s such an easy trap to fall into.
LikeLike
Sandra Parsons said:
Dr Adler has a rather enlightened view of things – until he gets to the point where he advocates the observation of the scientific method. What? Why would I have to back my opinion with data and rational arguments if I can use a) personal prejudice, b) religious immunity, and/or c) incivility. Sorry, sarcasm. I guess I am not the best example for respectful discourse. Blame my youth 😉
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
I’ll blame the little Teufel in you, Sandra! ;-}
LikeLike