POLITICAL CONVERSATIONS

How do you talk about politics? Let me rephrase that. The real question is, How do you talk about politics in a respectful, compassionate, and intelligent way? How can you invite others to talk about political issues and subjects without falling back on stereotypes, biases, cognitive distortions, and all of the manipulative ways that most political conversations involve?

To answer that in the negative— we must not do what we see on TV or cable! By every means possible, we need to avoid emulating the political pundits and commentators, or the so-called political journalists. Hardly any of them know how to carry on an informative, respectful, and equitable conversation. Ever once in a while I see and hear a few do it— but only for a few moments. But all of them on TV, cable, or an internet blogs have other agendas —create interest, create controversy, ask “gotta questions,” spin things to the bias of their audience, to make a name for oneself, to win over agreement, etc. What it does not seem that they want to do is to have a true dialogue.

It would also be good if we do not model the candidates in either the Presidential or thee Vice- President debates. Not only was there far, far too much interrupting, talking over each other, and name calling, but there was far, far too little open and transparent about their answers. I could not tell that there was any actual search to understand each other, only repeating “talking points,” trying to “get” the other, and trying to “win” over the other.

I addressed this in 2014 in the book Political Coaching, and although I wrote it to focus on the political coach or the facilitator who coaches to that subject. Yet what I wrote there can equally serve as guidelines for how to have decent political conversations with anyone. There’s a chapter that summarizes the best understandings of what healthy and respectful politics is (chapter 11 Principles for Political Coaching). Then there’s a chapter on Political Quicksand (chapter 12).

“Conversations can be like that— like quicksand. You begin on a line of thought and as the dialogue continues, one thought or idea evokes another, which triggers another, and before you know it, the conversation ping-pongs all over the place and you travel to places unexpected. Sometimes you travel to dark swamps where you lose your way and can’t see where you’ve been or which way to go. ‘How did we get here?’ You become confused even about how to get back on track. That’s conversational quicksand.” (p. 147)

There’s also a chapter on talking about political power (chapter 15)— what it is and have to have an intelligent conversation about power. There are guidelines about beliefs and how we are all believers which is what makes the conversations difficult in the first place (pp. 169-170). There is the guideline of ecology (pp. 170-172).

The bottom line: There are ways to have difficult conversations about difficult subjects. There are guidelines and skills that can enable us to develop the required competencies. There are skills so that people with opposing views can set down and talk. That requires that each be willing to actually listen and learn from the other. That means suspending judgments and exploring for facts and considering the various ways any set of fact can be interpreted. That means making assumptions and premises explicit which requires honest and direct responses. It means an attitude of collaboration, transparency and even authenticity.

In a healthy political conversation, you will hear both parties say from time to time, “That’s a good point” (Neurons 2020 #13 ). You will hear each ask for the source of the facts that are being presented. “How biased or unbiased were those who created those facts?” Source does matter. Even scientists struggle with that constantly. “Does the sponsoring organization have an agenda? Is there an outcome that they are expecting to be delivered?”

NLP as a communication model offers a whole set of skills for competently holding a true dialogue between opposing parties for those who care more about searching for the truth than defending a dogma. With the Meta-Model of Language, it offers a way for people to engage in critical thinking as they exchange ideas. In this way you can detect when there is manipulation occurring and call it out.

We have to do better—a lot better—in regard to our political conversations. And learning the basis of communication— the linguistics and the neurology that supports cooperative conversation is a great place.

[This series on Political Thinking represents my thinking, and mine alone. It does not necessarily represent Neuro-Semantics which is a psychological model. You can reach me at [email protected] L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. For the book Political Coaching, see the link — www.neurosemantics.com/political-coaching/ ]

Political Coaching is now in PDF format on The Shop https://www.neurosemantics.com/shop/page/3/