David Brooks has written an insightful column on civility, a concept that has received a lot of attention since the tragedy in Tucson. As I interpret his comments, he makes the observation that civility is based on tradition and that those who rank their individual needs above those of the community’s do not seem capable of behaving in a civil manner. To carry this thought a step further, I try to equate the wish for bipartisan behavior by elected officials while electing officials who refuse to cooperate or compromise. The same for condoning negative campaign ads and yet voting for those that benefit from those ads.
Here is the column.
Sandy,
I agree with your thoughts. The question in my mind is how can public leaders prove that they are truly acting biparitisanly. For example, the State of The Union speech featured leaders sitting next to their political foe. While this image was unabashedly symbolic, symbolism becomes tradition when it is viewed and interpreted as positive. Seeds are sprouted against all odds, and it becomes easier to conceive larger acts of cooperation. So — what are the unseen acts of cooperation leaders are doing? Strong images of these (but they must be authentic) can serve as a self-fulfilling process for leaders and citizens.
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom
Founder, DynamicShift
Hi Andrea,
From my experience, it is fairly easy to tell the difference between someone who is trying to do a good job and someone who is more concerned with personal gain. Those that are more interested in playing games are the ones that throw out labels, like “progressive,” “conservative ” and similar words that work on emotions. They are the ones that spend more time garnering media attention than doing the serious work. I would also suggest talking with someone that has had personal experience with a particular official. Some officials have a history of being rude, condescending or self-serving. While the inappropriate behavior usually doesn’t make headlines, it does make a difference in credibility and effectiveness.
S.
Sandy —
I’ve heard your point about those who categorize/separate with labels of “progressive” or “conservative.” Ironically I heard it from a GOP senator-want-to-be, during a discussion he and I had with Mark Ritchie. And I agree with your point. Am actually writing about related themes in research I’m co-authoring.
And I note that bipartisan senators, mayors and others I speak with augment the point I think you are making about superficial, game playing vs. serious, sleeves-rolled-up leadership wholeheartedly. As I observe of politicians “in action” remarkable how subversive many behaviors are.
Yet, the media isn’t going away so a big challenge is how leaders can use it to shine light on co-productive ways/efforts.
Media has a hard time with ambiguity for numerous reasons some nefarious, others logistical, and some simply because media is made up of people. Even those who make real efforts to remain objective can unintentionally reflect cultural ideals that are not. Why little things like the “sit with your political foe” strategy at SOTU was useful. (Al Quie suggested something very similar to this for DynamicShift, a non-partisan productive dialogue initiative I’ve been involved w/ since 2009.
Media has to cover it, and in the coverage, what made it interesting was the unprecedented cooperation. It’s a tiny step, but it beats past years when you saw leaders acting like children booing with their buddies at a HS hockey game.
Contrasting this is the “code 0f silence” effect of GOP leaders you posted on your blog. The best “news,” perhaps, is that someone got the clip taped and on YouTube. It is one of those things that seeing it is what drives the jaw-dropping effect.
In any case, this is an evolving issue. As much as I hate the gossipy effect of media, I do think it is a force to catalyze the beyond congress culture — so many more see the hard work you and others are doing, and the manipulative games others are playing.
Andrea
Andrea,
Another problem that concerns me is how objective reporters are allowed to be and still maintain their jobs when their reporting runs contrary to the owners’ interests. The fact that mergers are putting informational resources into the hands of fewer and fewer people is another concern. Another issue is that opinions are often presented as facts and the providers of the information rarely attempt to counter with the documentation that proves otherwise.
I keep hearing how people are looking for credible sources of information and it is easy to understand why.
S.
Sandy —
I couldn’t agree with you more. The challenge certainly relates to media ownership, but it also relates to media funding. Which is driven heavily by consumption of media. I did some writing for Mpls/St. Paul Magazine, under the late editor Brian Anderson. Due to my interest in digging into subject to capture full complexity (and their interest in same), I only wrote long-form articles for them. Unfortunately, this type of journalism is contrary to consumer-driven models. (For myriad reasons, many having to do with overwhelming enormity of information and paucity of time to read and reflect.)
The best remedy, in my mind, is to consume less corporate produced and funded media and engage in more public and personal communications. As always seems the case in my suggestions, this requires more time and intention. But sustained change isn’t being produced by (literally or figuratively) by big-media/consumer driven outlets.
A notable example of non-funded public/personal communications is what is coming out of Egypt, which has been sustained for two-weeks, despite their media being shut down by their government. Leaders of the uprising used face-to-face engagement of affected citizens (poor, etc — most of whom don’t even own computers) to build the protest. Today Murbarak resigned.
Obviously, we wouldn’t wish this bloodshed on our Country, but there are lessons to be taken from what has happened there, related to how “news” is reported and spread.
Andrea