Perhaps the most important issue being discussed today is “climate change.” The decisions made in Washington D.C. will impact our lives for the foreseeable future. Both sides have a “you’re for us or against us” tone. The great difficultly for the citizens of the country is that the rhetoric of both sides doesn’t help them come to a reasoned opinion. A hard look at the communication ethics used by the leaders of each position in needed to understand how we may be being manipulated.
What ethical criteria, standards or perspectives are being applied?
Those that support the idea of climate change believe they hold the moral high ground. As protectors of nature and humanity, it is their mission to save us from ourselves. There is a belief in the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment, a view that it is valuable in itself. Some in the environmental movement believe that the Bible commands good stewardship of nature and there are others that believe that the world would be better off without humans.
Group A, the environmentalists, argue that the signs of man’s impact on the Earth can be seen every day in countless ways. A few of the favorite examples are the melting icecaps, the rise in temperature, strong thunderstorms, hurricanes and the extinction of thousands of species. We have a seen the video of the lone polar swimming in the ocean looking for a place to rest, and most likely drowning. Thousands of leading academics give credence to the climate change argument and no less an authority published the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report warning of the great danger we face in the very near future. There is also the
Kyoto Protocol of 1997 that argued for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent a major global catastrophe.
Group B, those that don’t believe in global warming or climate change also want to protect the environment. They also have a belief that man should be a good steward of the planet, however their perspective is that man is not responsible for climate change. There are scientists on this side of the issues that argue that climate change is cylindrical, and that every 300 years the Earth heats up and cools down on its own. Other scientists point to sun spot activity (solar variations), or lack thereof for the heating and cooling of the planet.
The leaders of Group B believe that whatever changes in climate or pollution levels can be corrected by the free market. It is the belief of this group that any legislation that is passed in the Congress will cripple business, raise unemployment rates and restrict the freedom of all American citizens. Once again they believe that examples of environmental extremism can be easily seen daily. Group B points to closed factories, construction and job losses due to the presence of some endangered species stopping production, limits on the type of vehicles that can be manufactures as examples of how nature is favored over humans. They will also argue that the polar icecaps are expanding and there are more polar bears alive today than at any point in recent history.
Reasonableness and Relevancy
It is interesting that both sides have valid points and that the majority of their claims are reasonable. Obliviously both groups can agree that the climate changes, the debate is on whether man is solely responsible or if the temperature changes in three hundred year cycles. To the
layman, with no interest other than living his life with as little noise as possible, this would seem
to be a starting point for working out a solution to the current problem.
The difficulty is that both groups in communicating the relevancy of their positions are using fear to get the citizenry motivated. Group A will paint a picture of impending doom, temperatures in the upper nineties, massive flooding, famine and disease of Biblical proportions. Group B, using its own set of paints, will paint a dark picture of closed businesses, large unemployment, government mandates that restrict freedom of choice and movement. Finally they will both stand behind the podium and state, “If we don’t take the steps to stop it now, it will be too late and life as we know it will cease to exist.”
In an effort to mobilize an apathetic population this type of extreme communication takes priority over reasonableness, as relevancy becomes the main focus. To get the votes or public outcry needed to pass or stop legislation, or in the case of an elected representative, get re-elected both groups have to motivate their base constituencies.
Does the communication succeed or fail in measuring up to standards?
If we were to look emotionally at the two groups we might feel that they are both acting unethically. A closer look, taking the emotion out of the equation, would show that both groups are acting ethically to get their point of view across. It is interesting that in most cases the right of the political spectrum criticizes Sal Alinksy’s tactics, but in this effort they seem to embrace them. In fact both sides are borrowing heavily from Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals to influence the populace. What follows are a few examples of how Alinksy’s rules are being used by both groups.
Rule 2, Never go outside the experience of your people. Both groups only use tactics that are familiar to their base groups. Group A is willing to have protest demonstrations and acts of
civil disobedience, whereas, Group B focuses on letter and email campaigns to Congress. However the recent Tea Party activities might be the start of a new strategy for groups on the right.
Rule 5, Ridicule is a man’s most potent weapon. Depending upon your perspective, Group A consists of a bunch of left-wing, tree hugging, environmental fascist hippie nuts and Group B houses ignorant flat earthers, who can’t understand that the debate on climate change is over. It is difficult to defend against ridicule and is an effective tool take the speaking party off message.
Rule 8, Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, utilize all events of the period for your purpose. As can be seen from the recent debate on HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 both sides flooded their respective Congressperson with calls, emails and visits from lobbyists. Emails were sent to group members urging them to call both local and Washington offices. The internet has created an entirely new way for groups to disseminate information to one another, as has twitter.
During the debate the latest weather facts and figures were tossed about as proof that both sides positions were coming to be. Unemployment and deficit figures were used by Group B to warn of the dire consequences of passing the legislation. While Group A displayed on poster boards at the front of the House Chamber the number of green jobs that would be created and how new tax revenue would cut into the deficit. It is obvious that both groups know how to successfully play to their audiences. While the legislation did pass the House both sides are gearing up for battle in the Senate.
Rule 9, The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Both sides shamelessly demagogue the issue. A reasonable person would find it hard to believe that New York City would be six feet underwater in fifteen years if this piece of legislation did not pass. Similarly, the chances of a person believing that “cap and trade” will lead to the government control of all industry are just as unlikely. Yet both sides continue to successfully paint a dark picture of the world with seemingly little resistance from the general public.
The threat of Global Warming or Climate Change has actually clouded the perception of many in the public. A failure to act quickly will lead to the destruction of the Earth; something must be done, and soon. The other side counters, and many believe, that we are moving too quickly, giving up personal and property rights that the government will never get back.
Rule 13, Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it. In this case Group B has done a much better job at picking the target. When you think of Global Warming or Climate Change the first person you think of is former Vice-president Al Gore. The task for Group A is more difficult, mainly because they have been much more effective in getting their message out and Group B is fighting to get on even terms. The lack of leadership in Group B makes it difficult to demonize one individual. They have a much more difficult task in trying to freeze and polarize an entire group.
Given that both groups are using a similar communications ethic and both have succeeded in getting their message out to their base, I would tend to believe that they have been relatively successful in measuring up to the standard. Whether public perception of the issue is correct or not, both groups are motivating their members to become involved. The
communication is targeted and narrowly focused to get the individuals that will come out and do the work necessary for the group to be victorious in their cause. The response that is generates is
based more on emotion, rather than the facts. A call to duty; to protect the planet or protect your
freedoms.
To Whom is Ethical Responsibility Owed?
Ethical responsibility is owed to the group. We would like to believe that both groups have a responsibility to the public to present the facts to the public. Actually they are; they are presenting their facts. They are making an attempt to mold public opinion in their direction. What is not considered in the groups’ equation is the impact their communicative ethic has on society.
While each group has to answer to those that are backing it, be the Sierra Club or the Heritage Foundation, it would seem that somewhere the truth should actually be the most important part in the communication process, not the rhetoric. When we discuss ethical responsibility in an academic sense, ethics takes on a different connotation. For example, most people consider being ethical as telling the truth or doing what is right in a situation. In our discussion of ethics we mean getting a task done to the best of the organization’s ability, for the express purpose of getting the organization across the finish line first. . In Ethics in Human Communication Robert Jackall “found that the pressure of getting ahead contributed to organizational cultures the preference success and efficiency rather than ethics” (Johannesen 157).
An example might be former President Bill Clinton. President Clinton had the ability to compartmentalize. While many were not happy with his personal conduct, they were happy with his policies and ability to great things done. It was during his presidency, and I believe it is only his presidency, that there were always two sets of poll numbers, job performance and personal behavior. Poll after poll would show the President had high job
performance numbers and low numbers for his personal behavior. While his personal actions didn’t necessarily reflect his policy beliefs, he was an effective and popular president.
Ethical communication does not necessarily mean ethical action. Perhaps it should be viewed in a “nothing personal, business is business,” vain. It could be argued that organized crime is the most ethical in both communication and action. When the boss explains what he wants done, why and the personal consequences of failure, it is clear what will happen to an individual if he fails in his job. While this is effective communication, I doubt that this is the model we would like the private and public sector to adopt.
How Do I Feel After This Ethical Choice?
In my case after studying the facts of Climate Change, I do not consider it to me a entirely man made phenomenon. It is important to protect the environment. I have yet to hear the politician that runs on the issues of dirty air and water. The scare tactics of both sides have clouded the issue to such a degree that many decide based on feelings not fact.
In discussions with family, friends and others I feel comfortable with my communication ethics. While I have a point of view on the subject, I can sleep at night knowing that I am presenting facts, not fear mongering talking points. There is no name calling, on my part, although I have been called a “denier” by those that believe in climate change. If the goal of communication is to further yours and someone else’s knowledge on a subject, then I feel successful in my efforts.
It is easier in my case as I am not part of the group that questions climate change. My one true rant on the subject can be found on Parks Blog, which said, in part,
“I mean really isn't the climate always changing? I believe that use to be called the ‘Four Seasons.’ Does anyone remember, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter? The first Earth Day warned of the coming Ice Age!! As the political winds changed so did the cause and the attempts by government to limit our freedoms. We don't need the government and a panel of scientist with a political agenda to tell us what the weather outside our door is, believe it or not we can tell on our own.”
While it may appeal to the group it is my own thoughts and words on the issue. The piece was successful, in that, those how read it and did not agree were not offended and found parts of it humorous. The discussions we had we pleasant and non-combative even though we really didn’t change anyone’s mind on the subject.
Coherent Reflection of the Communicator’s Personal Character
In my opinion it would seem that those that believe in climate change are not acting out of character in their communications. Vice-President Gore truly believes that “The Earth has a fever” and wants to change the way we live to prevent its destruction. I, on the other hand, don’t believe in the man-made climate change theory. It is important to preserve the planet without destroying the rights of the people who live on it.
The beliefs held are an accurate reflection of our personal character. Neither of us wants to see the planet destroyed, and believe in conservation. We want our children and grandchildren to live in a safe environment. We just disagree on how best to get there.
Resolution Principles
A true resolution in this debate will never really come to fruition. First, there is too much political capital that has been spent for either side to back down from their position. Second, the climate change issue is a money maker for too many different organizations, political parties and politicians. Third, climate change is an excellent wedge issue that politicians can use to run for office or get re-elected. Fourth, scientists that depend on government money for research will work to get the result needed to keep funding. Finally, the weather will always be changing allowing both groups to continue exploiting the public for money and votes.
If both groups were to engage in the Spirit of Mutual Equality and “aid each other in making responsible decisions regardless of whether the decision be favorable or unfavorable to the particular view presented” (Johannesen 56). In doing so it could be the start of toning down the divisive rhetoric and working for a real solution to some of the environmental problems we face.
This might require each side to take a walk in the other’s shoes to see “the reality of the other’s viewpoint” (55). This type of communicative inclusion could soften the hard line positions of both sides. For example both groups want to stop our dependence on foreign oil, but can’t agree on how to do it. Those that believe in climate change want electric cars, solar and wind power. The other group would like to drill for oil in the United States and build nuclear power plants.
One possible solution; do both; it will take at least ten years until electric vehicles can
perform the way consumers want them too. Why not invest in off shore drilling for a limited
time, to lower our dependence on foreign oil supplies while we build the cars of the future? There would have to be an agreed time frame to accomplish these tasks, so that real results could be seen and oil drilling stopped at the appropriate time. At least a discussion of this type would give the public a sense that the problem was being worked to a solution.
The problem with this type of thinking is that many politicians don’t want a solution. They would prefer to demagogue issues relying, “heavily on propaganda . . . irrelevant emotional appeals pseudoproof to circumvent human rational decision-making process” (114). As noted earlier, there is a lot of money at stake in climate change and it seems to be easier to get the public engaged in the cause, not the solution.
Any real work for climate change legislation will be done in any number of committees in the House and Senate. These small groups if could be successful as long as they keep the conversation focused on the real issue. The discussions should be “responsive to the subject matter of the conversation and at the same time help establish conditions for the future unrestrained formation of experience” (141). The experience here would be the creation of rules for debate in both chambers that will allow for real debate and not grandstanding.
While I don’t see a change in the communication strategies of the climate change groups there is always the hope that the rhetoric will give way to the facts. John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things” and in this case as stubborn as the positions both sides have taken. We may never know the true facts of global climate change and if we don’t that means both groups have succeeded for their organizations.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Academically in may be a good thing. The rules of
engagement laid out by Alinksy will have worked as planned. It would seem though that it is abad for the public. In today’s society many only learn about the issues though sound bites on the news or political shows where the guests scream at each other. As communication becomes more packaged and specialized the public will be more easily led to the “correct” decision.
We can see this happening as organizations do polling and focus groups in an effort to craft their message. Advertisers, organizations and politicians spoon feed us what we want to hear to sell themselves or their product. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass would have four hour debates, in public, on the issues of the day. Today we are lucky to have an hour and a half with the two presidential candidates. When we do there is a moderator with prepackaged questions and the candidates are given one minute to respond, thirty seconds for rebuttal.
The art of communication is dying. People twitter and text. High School students are being to write papers the way that they text. We are sacrificing thoughtful conversation for time.
The entire nation suffers from attention deficit disorder. If you speak to someone for more than a minute their mind begins to wander, looking for some new stimulus. If we lose our ability to communicate one on one or in small groups we are doomed as a people. We will become a nation locked in our rooms punching a keyboard as we keep in touch through Facebook, YouTube or the next great social networking site. We will be social by being anti-social, hidden away, tucked behind a glowing white screen.
******************************************************************************
Works Cited
Alinksy, Saul D., Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books 1971.
Johannesen, Richard L., et al. Ethics in Human Communication 6th Edition. Illinois: Waveland
Press 2008.
Parks, John G. Homepage 02 Feb 09 <http://www.johngparks.com/blog/parksblog/blog.html>
What ethical criteria, standards or perspectives are being applied?
Those that support the idea of climate change believe they hold the moral high ground. As protectors of nature and humanity, it is their mission to save us from ourselves. There is a belief in the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment, a view that it is valuable in itself. Some in the environmental movement believe that the Bible commands good stewardship of nature and there are others that believe that the world would be better off without humans.
Group A, the environmentalists, argue that the signs of man’s impact on the Earth can be seen every day in countless ways. A few of the favorite examples are the melting icecaps, the rise in temperature, strong thunderstorms, hurricanes and the extinction of thousands of species. We have a seen the video of the lone polar swimming in the ocean looking for a place to rest, and most likely drowning. Thousands of leading academics give credence to the climate change argument and no less an authority published the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report warning of the great danger we face in the very near future. There is also the
Kyoto Protocol of 1997 that argued for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent a major global catastrophe.
Group B, those that don’t believe in global warming or climate change also want to protect the environment. They also have a belief that man should be a good steward of the planet, however their perspective is that man is not responsible for climate change. There are scientists on this side of the issues that argue that climate change is cylindrical, and that every 300 years the Earth heats up and cools down on its own. Other scientists point to sun spot activity (solar variations), or lack thereof for the heating and cooling of the planet.
The leaders of Group B believe that whatever changes in climate or pollution levels can be corrected by the free market. It is the belief of this group that any legislation that is passed in the Congress will cripple business, raise unemployment rates and restrict the freedom of all American citizens. Once again they believe that examples of environmental extremism can be easily seen daily. Group B points to closed factories, construction and job losses due to the presence of some endangered species stopping production, limits on the type of vehicles that can be manufactures as examples of how nature is favored over humans. They will also argue that the polar icecaps are expanding and there are more polar bears alive today than at any point in recent history.
Reasonableness and Relevancy
It is interesting that both sides have valid points and that the majority of their claims are reasonable. Obliviously both groups can agree that the climate changes, the debate is on whether man is solely responsible or if the temperature changes in three hundred year cycles. To the
layman, with no interest other than living his life with as little noise as possible, this would seem
to be a starting point for working out a solution to the current problem.
The difficulty is that both groups in communicating the relevancy of their positions are using fear to get the citizenry motivated. Group A will paint a picture of impending doom, temperatures in the upper nineties, massive flooding, famine and disease of Biblical proportions. Group B, using its own set of paints, will paint a dark picture of closed businesses, large unemployment, government mandates that restrict freedom of choice and movement. Finally they will both stand behind the podium and state, “If we don’t take the steps to stop it now, it will be too late and life as we know it will cease to exist.”
In an effort to mobilize an apathetic population this type of extreme communication takes priority over reasonableness, as relevancy becomes the main focus. To get the votes or public outcry needed to pass or stop legislation, or in the case of an elected representative, get re-elected both groups have to motivate their base constituencies.
Does the communication succeed or fail in measuring up to standards?
If we were to look emotionally at the two groups we might feel that they are both acting unethically. A closer look, taking the emotion out of the equation, would show that both groups are acting ethically to get their point of view across. It is interesting that in most cases the right of the political spectrum criticizes Sal Alinksy’s tactics, but in this effort they seem to embrace them. In fact both sides are borrowing heavily from Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals to influence the populace. What follows are a few examples of how Alinksy’s rules are being used by both groups.
Rule 2, Never go outside the experience of your people. Both groups only use tactics that are familiar to their base groups. Group A is willing to have protest demonstrations and acts of
civil disobedience, whereas, Group B focuses on letter and email campaigns to Congress. However the recent Tea Party activities might be the start of a new strategy for groups on the right.
Rule 5, Ridicule is a man’s most potent weapon. Depending upon your perspective, Group A consists of a bunch of left-wing, tree hugging, environmental fascist hippie nuts and Group B houses ignorant flat earthers, who can’t understand that the debate on climate change is over. It is difficult to defend against ridicule and is an effective tool take the speaking party off message.
Rule 8, Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, utilize all events of the period for your purpose. As can be seen from the recent debate on HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 both sides flooded their respective Congressperson with calls, emails and visits from lobbyists. Emails were sent to group members urging them to call both local and Washington offices. The internet has created an entirely new way for groups to disseminate information to one another, as has twitter.
During the debate the latest weather facts and figures were tossed about as proof that both sides positions were coming to be. Unemployment and deficit figures were used by Group B to warn of the dire consequences of passing the legislation. While Group A displayed on poster boards at the front of the House Chamber the number of green jobs that would be created and how new tax revenue would cut into the deficit. It is obvious that both groups know how to successfully play to their audiences. While the legislation did pass the House both sides are gearing up for battle in the Senate.
Rule 9, The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Both sides shamelessly demagogue the issue. A reasonable person would find it hard to believe that New York City would be six feet underwater in fifteen years if this piece of legislation did not pass. Similarly, the chances of a person believing that “cap and trade” will lead to the government control of all industry are just as unlikely. Yet both sides continue to successfully paint a dark picture of the world with seemingly little resistance from the general public.
The threat of Global Warming or Climate Change has actually clouded the perception of many in the public. A failure to act quickly will lead to the destruction of the Earth; something must be done, and soon. The other side counters, and many believe, that we are moving too quickly, giving up personal and property rights that the government will never get back.
Rule 13, Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it. In this case Group B has done a much better job at picking the target. When you think of Global Warming or Climate Change the first person you think of is former Vice-president Al Gore. The task for Group A is more difficult, mainly because they have been much more effective in getting their message out and Group B is fighting to get on even terms. The lack of leadership in Group B makes it difficult to demonize one individual. They have a much more difficult task in trying to freeze and polarize an entire group.
Given that both groups are using a similar communications ethic and both have succeeded in getting their message out to their base, I would tend to believe that they have been relatively successful in measuring up to the standard. Whether public perception of the issue is correct or not, both groups are motivating their members to become involved. The
communication is targeted and narrowly focused to get the individuals that will come out and do the work necessary for the group to be victorious in their cause. The response that is generates is
based more on emotion, rather than the facts. A call to duty; to protect the planet or protect your
freedoms.
To Whom is Ethical Responsibility Owed?
Ethical responsibility is owed to the group. We would like to believe that both groups have a responsibility to the public to present the facts to the public. Actually they are; they are presenting their facts. They are making an attempt to mold public opinion in their direction. What is not considered in the groups’ equation is the impact their communicative ethic has on society.
While each group has to answer to those that are backing it, be the Sierra Club or the Heritage Foundation, it would seem that somewhere the truth should actually be the most important part in the communication process, not the rhetoric. When we discuss ethical responsibility in an academic sense, ethics takes on a different connotation. For example, most people consider being ethical as telling the truth or doing what is right in a situation. In our discussion of ethics we mean getting a task done to the best of the organization’s ability, for the express purpose of getting the organization across the finish line first. . In Ethics in Human Communication Robert Jackall “found that the pressure of getting ahead contributed to organizational cultures the preference success and efficiency rather than ethics” (Johannesen 157).
An example might be former President Bill Clinton. President Clinton had the ability to compartmentalize. While many were not happy with his personal conduct, they were happy with his policies and ability to great things done. It was during his presidency, and I believe it is only his presidency, that there were always two sets of poll numbers, job performance and personal behavior. Poll after poll would show the President had high job
performance numbers and low numbers for his personal behavior. While his personal actions didn’t necessarily reflect his policy beliefs, he was an effective and popular president.
Ethical communication does not necessarily mean ethical action. Perhaps it should be viewed in a “nothing personal, business is business,” vain. It could be argued that organized crime is the most ethical in both communication and action. When the boss explains what he wants done, why and the personal consequences of failure, it is clear what will happen to an individual if he fails in his job. While this is effective communication, I doubt that this is the model we would like the private and public sector to adopt.
How Do I Feel After This Ethical Choice?
In my case after studying the facts of Climate Change, I do not consider it to me a entirely man made phenomenon. It is important to protect the environment. I have yet to hear the politician that runs on the issues of dirty air and water. The scare tactics of both sides have clouded the issue to such a degree that many decide based on feelings not fact.
In discussions with family, friends and others I feel comfortable with my communication ethics. While I have a point of view on the subject, I can sleep at night knowing that I am presenting facts, not fear mongering talking points. There is no name calling, on my part, although I have been called a “denier” by those that believe in climate change. If the goal of communication is to further yours and someone else’s knowledge on a subject, then I feel successful in my efforts.
It is easier in my case as I am not part of the group that questions climate change. My one true rant on the subject can be found on Parks Blog, which said, in part,
“I mean really isn't the climate always changing? I believe that use to be called the ‘Four Seasons.’ Does anyone remember, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter? The first Earth Day warned of the coming Ice Age!! As the political winds changed so did the cause and the attempts by government to limit our freedoms. We don't need the government and a panel of scientist with a political agenda to tell us what the weather outside our door is, believe it or not we can tell on our own.”
While it may appeal to the group it is my own thoughts and words on the issue. The piece was successful, in that, those how read it and did not agree were not offended and found parts of it humorous. The discussions we had we pleasant and non-combative even though we really didn’t change anyone’s mind on the subject.
Coherent Reflection of the Communicator’s Personal Character
In my opinion it would seem that those that believe in climate change are not acting out of character in their communications. Vice-President Gore truly believes that “The Earth has a fever” and wants to change the way we live to prevent its destruction. I, on the other hand, don’t believe in the man-made climate change theory. It is important to preserve the planet without destroying the rights of the people who live on it.
The beliefs held are an accurate reflection of our personal character. Neither of us wants to see the planet destroyed, and believe in conservation. We want our children and grandchildren to live in a safe environment. We just disagree on how best to get there.
Resolution Principles
A true resolution in this debate will never really come to fruition. First, there is too much political capital that has been spent for either side to back down from their position. Second, the climate change issue is a money maker for too many different organizations, political parties and politicians. Third, climate change is an excellent wedge issue that politicians can use to run for office or get re-elected. Fourth, scientists that depend on government money for research will work to get the result needed to keep funding. Finally, the weather will always be changing allowing both groups to continue exploiting the public for money and votes.
If both groups were to engage in the Spirit of Mutual Equality and “aid each other in making responsible decisions regardless of whether the decision be favorable or unfavorable to the particular view presented” (Johannesen 56). In doing so it could be the start of toning down the divisive rhetoric and working for a real solution to some of the environmental problems we face.
This might require each side to take a walk in the other’s shoes to see “the reality of the other’s viewpoint” (55). This type of communicative inclusion could soften the hard line positions of both sides. For example both groups want to stop our dependence on foreign oil, but can’t agree on how to do it. Those that believe in climate change want electric cars, solar and wind power. The other group would like to drill for oil in the United States and build nuclear power plants.
One possible solution; do both; it will take at least ten years until electric vehicles can
perform the way consumers want them too. Why not invest in off shore drilling for a limited
time, to lower our dependence on foreign oil supplies while we build the cars of the future? There would have to be an agreed time frame to accomplish these tasks, so that real results could be seen and oil drilling stopped at the appropriate time. At least a discussion of this type would give the public a sense that the problem was being worked to a solution.
The problem with this type of thinking is that many politicians don’t want a solution. They would prefer to demagogue issues relying, “heavily on propaganda . . . irrelevant emotional appeals pseudoproof to circumvent human rational decision-making process” (114). As noted earlier, there is a lot of money at stake in climate change and it seems to be easier to get the public engaged in the cause, not the solution.
Any real work for climate change legislation will be done in any number of committees in the House and Senate. These small groups if could be successful as long as they keep the conversation focused on the real issue. The discussions should be “responsive to the subject matter of the conversation and at the same time help establish conditions for the future unrestrained formation of experience” (141). The experience here would be the creation of rules for debate in both chambers that will allow for real debate and not grandstanding.
While I don’t see a change in the communication strategies of the climate change groups there is always the hope that the rhetoric will give way to the facts. John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things” and in this case as stubborn as the positions both sides have taken. We may never know the true facts of global climate change and if we don’t that means both groups have succeeded for their organizations.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Academically in may be a good thing. The rules of
engagement laid out by Alinksy will have worked as planned. It would seem though that it is abad for the public. In today’s society many only learn about the issues though sound bites on the news or political shows where the guests scream at each other. As communication becomes more packaged and specialized the public will be more easily led to the “correct” decision.
We can see this happening as organizations do polling and focus groups in an effort to craft their message. Advertisers, organizations and politicians spoon feed us what we want to hear to sell themselves or their product. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass would have four hour debates, in public, on the issues of the day. Today we are lucky to have an hour and a half with the two presidential candidates. When we do there is a moderator with prepackaged questions and the candidates are given one minute to respond, thirty seconds for rebuttal.
The art of communication is dying. People twitter and text. High School students are being to write papers the way that they text. We are sacrificing thoughtful conversation for time.
The entire nation suffers from attention deficit disorder. If you speak to someone for more than a minute their mind begins to wander, looking for some new stimulus. If we lose our ability to communicate one on one or in small groups we are doomed as a people. We will become a nation locked in our rooms punching a keyboard as we keep in touch through Facebook, YouTube or the next great social networking site. We will be social by being anti-social, hidden away, tucked behind a glowing white screen.
******************************************************************************
Works Cited
Alinksy, Saul D., Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books 1971.
Johannesen, Richard L., et al. Ethics in Human Communication 6th Edition. Illinois: Waveland
Press 2008.
Parks, John G. Homepage 02 Feb 09 <http://www.johngparks.com/blog/parksblog/blog.html>
RSS Feed