Larry D. Lauer

One of today’s most vicious and destructive political communication tactics is the practice of defining the opposition in more extreme terms than it warrants… and then demonizing its intentions.

On weekends I often watch Book-TV. I recently watched and listened to an angry young author define the president of the United States and his entire administration as criminals, and that they all should be put in jail. He then went on with even more vicious and angry charges. And then he followed those by generalizing his charges to include “all liberals,” each minute struggling to intensify the anger in his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech in our country insures his right to speak. And I defend his right to do so. But the tone and anger in his approach destroyed any possibility of finding any way to heal this already seriously divided country.

I have no political agenda. I write solely from a communication dynamic perspective. Politically I have come to think of myself  as a pragmatic independent who is desperately seeking solutions to this destructive polarization.

There are constructive approaches he could have used. There are words he could have chosen to harshly criticize the administration, but do it more constructively. There is a tone he could have used that would have enabled helpful conversations. Debate can be healthy. Uncompromising angry debate is not.

When extremists leave no room for holding a country together, their logic leads to collapse. This has been the consequence of a thousand years of extreme and vicious tribal conflict in the Middle East, and to follow their logic is to head down the same road.