Larry D. Lauer

Everyone understands the importance of body language.  We know that how we look (facial expression, gestures, dress, etc.) when we make a statement either reinforces the message, cancels its credibility, or sends a completely different secondary message. This is true for institutions, and for individuals.

This week the Texas Legislature failed to pass the bill authorizing the state budget before the close of the regular session. The culprit was a Senator’s filibuster protesting dramatic cuts in public education.  The governor immediately called a special session, which brings into play a whole different set of voting rules.  Members can now start over on a new bill, or pass the entire current bill by a simple majority.  They can also revisit and change elements of the bill that were blocked during the regular session by the minority.

The ultimate consequence is that a bill which cuts a whopping $4 Billion from public education, putting thousands of teachers and others out of work, is now likely to pass.

I understand that many think this super drastic action is necessary in these hard economic times. Others feel just as sincerely that the economy can be rebuilt with a more balanced approach. My “communication” concern here is that many of the victors this week in Texas “looked” so self-satisfied about winning.

The legislature by majority vote is now likely to bring enormous pain to countless Texas families. And instead of demonstrating compassion and empathy about the eventual consequences, they focused on looking happy about the victory.

At both the state and federal levels, it is worrisome to think about what body language might be telling us about so many of our current political leaders.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

The American Council on Education’s (ACE) annual meeting was held in Washington this week, and as you would expect, many of the speakers addressed the huge issues facing higher education, and the dilemmas we face in trying to address them.

I addressed this dilemma previously in Lesson 46, but I am driven again this week to talk about the senseless contradictions inherent these days in most of our political messaging:

Some give rousing speeches to motivate teachers to higher achievement,  and then turn around and make them hostile. 

Many make statements about reducing costs and restoring local responsibility, but then impose national standards and stiffer regulations…all of which, of course, increase costs!

Much rhetoric is about creating new jobs, but then these same folks propose immediate and draconian cuts…putting  people out of jobs by the thousands.

These “political communicators” operate on the premise that repeating the same extreme view over and over again will eventually make it effective.  But this is not true communication.  It is propaganda, pure and simple. 

The consequence of propaganda is that some will buy it, and others just stop participating . We end up with a polarized world, and no solutions.

Genuine political communication is about better understanding and  promoting  the greater good. It seeks to move audiences toward genuine solutions. It favors practical approaches and simple messages that improve social climate and enable democratic progress, one step at a time.

Propaganda, then, aims only to win big for a few. Communication, however,  expands understanding, accounts for differences, and offers reasonable solutions.

Read Full Post »