MR. GREGORY [on the subject of "birthers"]: As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?
SPEAKER BOEHNER: David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people.
– "Meet the Press", February 13, 2011
An Editorial writer at the New York Times (and David Gregory) took issue with this response, seeing it as disingenuous. Let's consider another possibility.
Assume there are basically two ways of thinking:
Type1 – Dualism: black-white, wrong-right, evil-good; apocalyptic –
Child-like
Child-like
The thinking goes something like this:
My side is right and good.
The other side is wrong and therefore Evil.
Things I don't understand are scary to me and therefore Bad.
I will stick with my side because they're good and I'm good.
Dualistic thinking can lead to a straight-forward, consistent message and solid group cohesion.
Type 2 – Complexity, tones of gray – Grown-up
Sometimes I'm right, sometimes you're right.
By sharing differing perspectives, we can find solutions to our problems.
My side is not always right or good; sometimes I don't have a "side" at all.
Things I don't understand make me curious to learn more.
I will challenge my side when I believe they're wrong.
I will approach the other side as if they think the same way I do, even if their perspective is different.
What is the opposite of cohesion ? Confusion – that is, the message is complicated and may seem confused. [Most of us have heard the line, attributed to Will Rogers, "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."] The consistency is in the process, how one thinks about problems, not in the "answers."
So, if I'm a Type 1 person I might think about the president this way:
I am right and good; I disagree with Obama, therefore he is wrong and evil.
Other things that are bad:
Anyone who's not American born
Muslims (who honor something called "Sharia Law")
Street-wise men of color
People who want to take my guns, and so forth.
Therefore, Obama is not American-born, is a Muslim, wants to impose Sharia Law, a thug who wants to take my guns away, etc. etc.
So perhaps it's not disingenuous for a leader who's constituency holds many Type 1 voters to say, "The American people have the right to think what they think." Conceivably the Speaker is just reflecting an understanding of the community his party represents.
Is it possible this is about epithets, not "facts"? If so, there's no wonder Democrats are frustrated; facts as they understand them are irrelevant to a significant number of American voters. Perhaps it's time to come up with a whole different understanding of "facts."
NOTE: I have simplified some important concepts to help get me to my point more directly. Much good work has been done in the area of conflict and communications. Excellent examples can be found in the works of W. Barnett Pearce, such as his books Communication and the Human Condition and Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide (the latter with Stephen W. Littlejohn.) All Barnett's work is informed and intriguing.
[Image Credit:
Obama as a pimp, from TeaParty.Org email, January 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment