Too often we send out position statements without explaining their context. This is particularly important for political statements, especially if they are to have genuine credibility and legitimate social value.
This week I have been especially mindful that virtually all the “solutions” I have been hearing about for solving our budget deficits lack any reference to meaningful context, especially to lessons of past societies. Without including needed perspective, strategic communication is alarmingly incomplete.
I observed in previous posts that today’s political communication often amounts to only one-sided propaganda. Positions on issues are put forth over and over again with the assumption that repeating them often enough will make them true. But when context is missing, and needed, political viewpoints are just not useful.
For professional strategic communicators, I have argued that we always have the responsibility to make sure our political messages are seen in as accurate a context as possible. Only then will our audiences understand the essential historical and social factors that surround the situation, and can see how they have been taken into account when formulating our position. Such a position, then, is worthy of serious consideration, and it is socially useful because we have established its’ credibility.
Much-needed context is missing in most of today’s political discourse. The result is dangerous polarization. A few respond to these extremes, but too many just drop out. And it is entirely possible that these dropouts will become the vast majority.
I asked my historian cousin to describe his “lessons learned” from studying similar situations over the course of time. Just what are the consequences of this kind of extreme rhetoric, I asked? His response was that when extreme political rhetoric (i.e. propaganda), based mostly on ideology, ends with the wealthy allowing the middle class to decline, and the poor to be ignored, the society will inevitably decline. In fact, this is how entire civilizations fall.
We certainly are not hearing this kind of broader “historical context” addressed in today’s debates over how to manage deficits over time. I believe, however, that only by seeing political positions in the context of established historical realities like this, will our arguments have real credibility. Otherwise, we are only simple-minded propagandists, and our society is certain to decline.
Leave a Reply