fallon Bull Sale - The Progressive Rancher Magazine

By Joe Guild
Usually, these columns come together in my head a few days before I write
them and this one is no different. But yesterday, Congresswoman Gabrielle
Giffords and 19 others were shot by a deranged, disillusioned man in Tucson,
Arizona. Tragically, this event ties into the subject I was going to write about in
this edition. At this writing, six people were killed including a Federal Judge and
a nine year old girl. The Congresswoman clings to life
in critical condition.
I recently attended a conference during which some
very frustrated people expressed that frustration in negative,
intolerant and accusatory language. It caused me to
think, as we approach a legislative session here in Nevada,
about how to be effective and successful in public policy
debates. In other words, there are proper and improper ways
to lobby our elected leaders. I have written about this before,
but in these times where the discourse seems to lack civility
and just plain good manners, I would like to repeat myself
a bit and add some other thoughts.
First, we should all remember our constitution gives
everyone the right to petition the government for a redress
of grievances. In the same first amendment, we are also
guaranteed freedom of speech. So, anyone can say anything
so long as it doesn’t result in physical harm and any citizen
can check in with an elected leader and give an opinion,
provide information or ask for a solution to a problem. This is why Ms. Giffords was
holding a meeting in a grocery store parking lot in Tucson. Most people have known
these to be their fundamental rights since they were very young. Implied in the statement
of the above rights is the notion if one person gets a chance to say something
on an issue we should listen to them and them to us. We don’t have to agree, indeed,
shouldn’t always agree, but our form of government demands that we give each other
the respect everyone with an opinion deserves. If you don’t want to listen then walk off
or turn off the TV. But don’t expect anyone to listen to you if you walk away. Believe
me this isn’t a Rodney King “why can’t we just all get along” rant. I know we cannot
or will not always get along. That said if you disagree with someone, fine; just don’t be
disagreeable. Are we so far removed from intelligent, thoughtful, rational discourse we
have to resort to name-calling, sound bite sloganeering and outright personal attacks?
Are people so lazy they cannot dig up a few facts and formulate a reasoned argument to
try and sway opinion their way? Does the 24 hour news cycle feed the part of us which
wants easy answers and no dissenting viewpoints? I am not sure I know the answers to
these questions but it seems to me we lower ourselves as a civilization when we lower
the standards for what counts as public discourse and debate over the issues of import
for our society.
There is no doubt the man who committed the senseless acts of violence against
all of those people in Arizona was delusional and insane by any measure. I don’t suggest
nor imply people who are rude and threatening in their public remarks in any
debate are on the same level as the Arizona shooter but I do believe there is a parallel
in frustration and mood which does not lend itself to success in the public policy arena.
To carry the shooter’s logic to absurdity would be something like this: you don’t agree
with me, you are not listening to me; therefore I will kill you to convince you I am right.
No rational person would agree this makes any sense. But, just change it around a bit:
Public Discourse
Grandma’s old
adage you can catch
more flies with
honey than vinegar
applies here.
you won’t listen to me, so I will yell at you louder; you don’t agree with me, so I will
launch a personal attack against you and your ideas; this will undoubtedly swing you
over to my point of view. Once I am done yelling and screaming at you, I know you
will agree with me.
How many of you, when personally attacked, end up agreeing with the loud, angry
person directing that anger towards you. My guess is none
of you. Some of what I heard at this conference was delivered
by reasonable people who delivered their messages in
a reasoned, logical and straightforward, even eloquent way.
I listened intently. However, some of what I heard was said
using language which seemed to be deliberately inflamed
and non-persuasive. This begs the question of what tactics,
language and approach are effective and persuasive. Rule
number one, before that question is answered, is never
compromise your basic principles. You can compromise on
details and procedures, and indeed, to accomplish anything
in the legislative process you have to compromise. But,
there are tactics and techniques to find a common ground.
If these are not employed by both sides in any public policy
debate nothing would ever get done. Every side does not
always have a super majority.
In my opinion, grandma’s old adage you can catch
more flies with honey than vinegar applies here as it does in
most human dealings. There is always someone in charge; the boss; the one who ultimately
makes a decision and in a legislative body that person is the leader of the house
in which a bill proposing a new law or an amendment to an existing one is located.
Once a bill passes a legislature it doesn’t become a law until an executive signs it. So,
the second rule is do not dis the leader. By that I mean you can respectfully disagree but
you cannot disgrace, disparage, dismiss or disrespect that leader personally and expect
that leader to see your point of view. It is also interesting to me how people in the same
circumstance circle around when one of their own is personally attacked. This creates
allies and since an attack on one becomes an attack on all, the attacker has an even
more difficult job of persuasion. Another way of saying this is to respect the office or
the institution even while disagreeing with the office holder. By following this rule, it is
almost a guarantee that there will be a more civil discourse. It is also good manners to
do this. Besides the personal denunciation being rude, such verbal assaults belittle and
destroy the credibility of the one delivering them. If you are denounced in such a way,
it also diminishes your credibility if you respond in a similar fashion.
Stick to the facts and create emotional sympathy for your point of view from those
facts. Emotion and sympathy trump facts every time but add one of these factors to
your facts and you will win every time. Does any of this sound like things your mother
used to say? If so, she and my mom were probably co-conspirators.
I suggest a positive approach. I think if you provide solutions to problems rather
than complaints, a tolerant respect for other or opposite points of view, good arguments
against those points of view, and an acknowledgment that everyone has a right
to participate in an argument over public policy, you will win more than you will lose.
As we go into Nevada’s next legislative session I hope everyone doesn’t leave their
manners and common sense at the door.
I’ll see you soon.
6 February 2011
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com