Larry D. Lauer

How was the US midterm election viewed abroad?  If actions speak louder than words it’s clear that it will be difficult for the US to lead the way in the Middle East, or anywhere else.  How can countries have confidence in a nation where its Congress is polarized and gridlocked, where its president is attacked every day as ineffective by both parties, and where an election is characterized more by vicious attacks than by positive ideas.

Gridlock, polarization and a president under siege: Analysts often argue that only American leadership and power can rally the support of concerned countries to seriously address the most troubling international issues.

But for the last six years the world has seen daily attacks on the US president from a polarized, do-nothing congress. This situation hardly builds credibility. It’s no wonder allies hesitate to rally behind US initiatives. How can we expect other countries to have confidence in a mean-spirited and fragmented nation. It’s no wonder allies hesitate to commit troops to the current Iraq and Syria initiatives when it looks like the US does not have confidence in itself.

An election without platforms:  There is no doubt that thoughtful Americans find this dysfunction embarrassing. If so many people are dissatisfied you would think that an election would produce at least a few constructive ideas and practical plans. But the recent midterm election largely degenerated into battles where billions of dollars were spent solely to discredit the opposition.

Making a commitment to focus on creating jobs and supporting quality education was as positive as most races got. But there were few if any ideas about how to accomplish these things. And, of course, attacks on the president continued.

From a strategic communication vantage point every aspect of perceived dysfunction spells breakdown. If actions speak louder than words, then what we have here is a communication mess. Handling crises requires strong day-to-day leadership which is not under constant and relentless attack.

Political campaigns are legitimate times for alternative ideas. But focusing mostly on putting forth positive ideas and not viciously discrediting leaders would be the more responsible approach… especially during international crises.

“Meanings are in people” is a lesson learned early in Communication 101.

When we use a word like “conservative” we are only making a “noise” or sending a “sign.” The “meaning” that will be understood is already in the mind of the receiver. For some, the word may mean practical and thoughtful, and carries a very positive connotation. For others, it may mean something closer to self-serving or lack of social compassion, and may carry a really negative connotation.

The meaning of a term such as “dictator” these days seems to be determined by how each individual or social group is fairing under each one. For some the word may simply mean “tyrant.” For others, however, it may mean little more than a military-style leader. In fact, many individuals and businesses will prosper under some dictatorships, and they may think this is far better than the chaos that follows revolutions.

The demonstrations this week in Hong Kong also give us a glimpse of how the word “communism” can be understood differently by different groups of Chinese citizens. For some the word may simply mean a government administered society. And for others it may mean oppression of the masses. Today many young people see the current system as offering few opportunities. But a growing number of business people in cities such as Peking, Shanghai and Hong Kong seem to simply see a strong government that is enabling successful enterprise.

In this digital 24/7 news media world many words are losing commonly understood meanings. Politicians and pundits use words such as freedom, democracy, and justice to serve their own purposes.  As a consequence these words, as well as many others, now have various meanings.

Only when sender and receiver “experiences overlap” can common understanding be reached. Communication between nations and cultures especially requires patience, persistence and interactive  dialogue over time. This is the ultimate challenge of international relationship building, and vastly more people-to-people exchanges would be a major step toward meeting that challenge.