Larry D. Lauer

This week Congress finally was able to orchestrate a strategy to reopen the government and avoid default on American debt. But while a method was finally reached to make this happen, no significant communication lessons were learned about the long-range damage of extreme polarization… even among many moderates.

For example, the Texas Republicans all voted against the bi-partisan bill. Voting as an extremist block has communication dynamic consequences. It confuses what you really believe in the minds of your audiences, destroys your capacity to be singularly understood as a strong leader, and makes you look like you lack the courage to stand out when the situation calls for it.

I use this example because I know some of these people. I thought I knew where they stood politically, but also on matters of true statesmanship. It has nothing to do with my political preferences. I am as bi-partisan as anyone… a little left of center on a few social issues, and slightly right of center on financial ones. Rather my communication consequence concerns are about the necessary ground rules for constructive debating in a democratic society.

As a communicator I describe these ground roles like this: As a politician you argue what you honestly believe during the campaign and when bills are being developed. In the final analysis, however, you behave like a statesman. You understand that compromise is not losing and can be win-win, that changes can be made over time, and that your main job after compromise is to win the next election.

To behave otherwise, the communication consequence is chaos and confusion. Thoughtful individuals lose capacity to lead. And American “exceptionalism” declines as a positive identity and becomes a negative perception all over the world.