Experiment: How would you advise Sen. Clinton?
Twice now in this political session we have had the opportunity to move beyond the Carl Rove/Frank Luntz school and system of communication. The first was Sen. Obama’s speech on race. The second is this current statement discussed in PGL’s post.
I understand the current structure of our MSM and their strategy to earning viewers and thus money; stir the crap. Even Olberman had one guest ask if the public was smart enough to understand Sen Obama’s speech on race as oppose to running after the handoff of the baton of: Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk…
That was it. The biggest opportunity to step out from the focus on the word or words and into the focus on the message the person speaking was attempting to relay. Less emphysis on one’s interpretation of the words used and more focus on the interpretation used by the one you are communicating with for the sole purpose and desire to fully commune.
This current statement by Obama is now the second opportunity for the US to step away with no penalty of loss of honor from the inward focus on the word/words into the outward focus on the message.
I’m not really expecting the MSM to make the change. Would be nice, but it will not happen until our elected ones make the change. That Sen. Clinton did not and has not recognized these two opportunities and run with them is evidence of the lie of her political prowess. She has failed to sense that the common thread in all of the “change” dialog regarding political change evolving into policy change is the cessation of the focusing on the word/words for the sake of winning the argument. Such a focus is a selfish life approach.
Our loss of respect in the world, our feelings of distrust, our decline of a sense of comfort, even the bank issue, the war, all of it began with shift to an approach of dialog of word/words. Our dialog has been dominated for 3 decades by a style of communication that manifests out of selfishness. It is the “lazy” in the presentation of the fat American, the me generation, the welfare queen, the illegal immigrant.
It’s easier to focus on the word. Every word has an emotional response and every emotional response has a physical response. It is physiology. Thus it is simple to generate a belief in one’s self that you are what I say you are and to feel good and confident in your righteousness. It is the style of dialog one becomes engaged in when holding a conversation with another who is drunk or stoned, or high or manic, or schizophrenic or panicked or shocked. It is the irony of the framing of Bush as being capable of relating because you could sit and have a beer with him. You can. You just won’t be able to communicate to any point of resolution. With no ability to truly comprehend the message of the one you’re talking to, you have no ability to trust that person. Consequently you have no ability to commune with that person. In terms of economics, no ability to trade.
Sen. Clinton has shown twice now that she either: 1. does not understand this most basic of lessons of communication or 2. does understand, but for selfish intent will use it against those she professes a desire to serve or 3. does understand, but has little faith or trust in those she professes a desire to serve.
With that, how would you advice Sen. Clinton to respond to Sen. Obama’s statements knowing that he put the following out there: Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk…
END