Shouting Past Each Other

            I frequently post essays detailing my thoughts on current culture, society, and political machinations. Normally, I try to focus on ideas that undergird our culture and political decisions and not on specific individuals or their decisions. I try to raise ideas and let readers draw their own conclusions. But recently, I did take the time to criticize a specific policy and the decision that flowed from it.

            As expected, it infuriated some readers, pushing them to respond. I expected this and was not overly concerned. After all, if I enjoy freedom of speech, so should others. What surprised me was the virulence of some of the responses. I was also taken aback by the ad hominem attacks. One respondent demanded that I leave the country, moving to some unspecified place where I would learn the error of my ways and come groveling back, seeking forgiveness for my ignorance and boorish behavior. I was also a bit surprised at the vulgar language bandied about by some of the authors. Now, not all who responded negatively did so with vituperative vigor. Some respondents were gracious and careful in their wording, seeking to convince me with evidence and carefully constructed arguments. These were efficacious, forcing me to do more research and even adjust my thinking. One friend even approached me via a different platform, which resulted in an online conversation. What was the reason they chose another venue? They did not want to enflame the already burning passions. The result, again I was able to improve my understanding and further adjust my thinking. This one post and the associated exchanges reveal what is wrong and what is right in our current political communications model.

            What is wrong? We let our own ideological litmus test rule our passions. Anger replaces thoughtful measured response. If someone says or believes something we find unacceptable, we consider them the enemy and attack their character. We unleash withering broadsides comprised of angry attacks on the person with very little in the way of facts or other possibilities. We use language that is more fit for a barroom brawl than for a collegial debate. Our aim? Humiliation and validation. We seek to humiliate anyone that disagrees with us, and we desperately want validation from those who think the same as we do. We’re quite content to batter each other across the great divide we’ve constructed through our own intransigence.

            This mindset of intransigence and consigning all those who think differently to the enemy camp hobbles our national discourse, our politics, and our government. We accept boorish behavior from our elected officials and the accompanying policy failure as status quo. Oh, we blame those who think otherwise; but, we fail to own up to our own role in digging the dividing canyon and resultant chaos. We’ve forgotten the power of a well-spoken thoughtful word adroitly delivered.

            Returning to my recent experience. Those who sought to savage and pillory me had no real effect on my ideological construct. Their baseless attacks on my character and intelligence so obscured their ideas as to render them impotent. My friends who approached me with thoughtful words, appropriate facts, and well-reasoned ideas forced me to reconsider and reshape my worldview. Their words were powerful in effect, which is what we need. We do not need more braggadocios posturing. We do not need digital bullies who engage in personal attack when confronted with an idea or opinion that they do not like. If we’re ever going to find our way out of the morass which so stifles the goodness of our land, we must recover our ability to engage in civil discourse and even entertain ideas which, at first blush, we do not agree with. When we do that, we can start making good progress towards solving the problems that so vex us. 

Good News, Bad News

 

            I spent almost ten years wearing the “Green Tab” in the Army. The “Green Tab” was a small piece of green felt that I pinned around my epilate underneath my rank insignia, indicating that I was a troop leader. It also meant that I was responsible to my commander for the behavior, good or ill, of my troops. I was also responsible for the equipment and facilities I was signed for. As a second lieutenant I was responsible for over one hundred soldiers, NCOs, and a handful of civilian contractors. I was accountable for four buildings and millions of dollars of communications equipment. Additionally, I was responsible for communications links that sprawled across Europe and at times other parts of the world. The load only increased as I moved up the ladder. As part of this, I often had to bring my superiors bad news, always an experience full of trepidation. During the eighties and early nineties, some commanders embraced a zero-defect style of command. They considered any bad news a failure of one sort or another on my part. Bringing them bad news was always a journey through a minefield full of ambushes; consequently, their subordinates tended to drag their feet when delivering bad news. Often, they did not have a full understanding of how things were in their command; due in part to the hesitancy of their subordinates to deliver bad news and their unwillingness to deal appropriately with problems. Dealing with problems is a significant part of leadership.

            As a leader we must solve problems, and shooting the messenger is not a good way to solve problems. After you shoot a few messengers, they stop telling you the truth. They know that you do not really want to understand what is going on You simply want to feel good. I had one supervisor who had a sign on his wall which read, “If it looks good, it probably is.” That summed up his zero-defect view of the world quite well. In the late nineties, I took over a recruiting company, which was known across the command as a very problematic company. The commander had stopped caring and let things slide for a long time. Following the example set by the commander, most of the NCOs had stopped caring and did little to complete their mission. Before I took command, my commander pulled me aside and told me that I should, “Clean house.”

            One of the problems that I found was several NCOs who espoused racist attitudes and regularly used inappropriate language and actively sought to enlist young men and women that also embraced such an unacceptable attitude. It was evident that this problem was a cancer that infected the company, even into the leadership. It was so bad that it had drawn the interest of the local chapter of the NAACP. Gathering the evidence, I approached my commander with this disturbing news.

            Fortunately for me, he was not the kind of commander who would shoot the messenger. Instead, he, with clear eyes, assimilated the information, and together we took the actions necessary to root out the sickness and rectify the situation. Our willingness to confront the problem head on and take appropriate action to hold the guilty individuals accountable so impressed the NAACP representatives that instead of pillorying us, they applauded our actions. All this was due to my commander’s ability to absorb bad news, develop a plan, and then take affirmative action. Had he been a “shoot the messenger” kind of leader, the problem would have festered.

            Good leaders understand that at times they must deal with bad news. Dealing with bad news takes courage and fortitude. Beating up the bearers of bad news causes them to either keep it to themselves or to shade, color, or lie about it so that it is no longer bad. Either way, problems languish without a solution, often hidden from sight. Sooner or later, they will manifest themselves and usually are much worse and harder to solve due to the delay. We need fearless leaders that can face up to problems and then labor to solve them, not leaders who shoot the messenger.