Political Listening.....True Listening to other Democrats

Listening, true listening.....in the Political Context has always been difficult and minimal. By definition, most come to Politics with a pre-disposed reaction to certain issues.

Listening to those who disagree, especially if their disagreement is in a 'disagreeable' manner, is nearly impossible to anyone who's inner convictions are deeply held.

That said, simply shouting that someone's a Traitor (a word with a specific meaning) to the Democratic Party or the country because they disagree with the statement or action of another Party member isn't a useful form of persuasion. If persuasion is the goal then the conversation has to be held in such a manner as to allow the alternative view to 'get through' to the listener even if the listener eventually continues to disagree with the speaker/writer.

A recent interview by Chris Matthews of Bill Moyers is a perfect example of disagreement without anger. One of Bill Moyers great strengths is present his opinions, judgments and conclusions in such a manner of civility, with fact backed data or experience, that the Listener is forced to consider this Voice....the Bill Moyers Voice that is so non-confrontational and reasonable. I didn't see the interview but I'll bet Mathews didn't even interrupt as much since his brain and thoughts were fully engaged.

Bill Moyers may be the best example of this type of presentation. His decades of interviewing, writing and persuading an audience of his viewpoint, (or at least presenting a plausible picture of his viewpoint), has honed his skills dramatically.

One of the great problems faced by the modern Presidential Candidate is the lack of opportunity for a nuanced answer to an apparently simple question. Most foreign policy and major domestic policy questions are not simple and easy if the Candidate is attempting to offer real solutions as part of his/her Campaign.
(much more on the flip)

 As a result of that reality I have suggested in The Insurgent Political Campaign that we abandon the pretense that a Candidate can offer detailed solutions in the campaign format and work with simple, value-based, poll-validated answers that a majority of Americans already support. We choose those poll-validated policies that are part and parcel of The Democratic Party fabric. Our candidates would work only with those positions that have the inner ring of reality to that candidate.

At MyDD a member, Teknofyl, called it:...the Dark Art of sloganeering and phraseolgy.

On the public campaign trail the reality of the short,quick answer, the Dark Art, may be the only option. But in private conversation, at houseparties, within groups, in blogs then the format most effectively demonstrated by Bill Moyers will work the best at persuasion. This is a format that engages the Listener...even when they eventually disagree. If our goal is to persuade then our current conversation is useless.

Shouting doesn't persuade. Demanding doesn't persuade. Divisive language doesn't persuade. They all bring to the surface concrete divisions powered by inner belief systems that are very, very personal and important to the listener. In this case, I don't believe much effective listening takes place.

If we can't even learn to listen to each other then how is the general electorate going to react to our candidates? Will they listen or work only with the slogans and TV ads? I doubt the public will listen much. We don't.

The Dark Art of Sloganeering may be a necessary part of campaign communication but anger, vitriol and furious responses have no place within the Party or the primaries.

For whatever it's worth....