You can’t read the news these days without reading about Congressman Joe Wilson’s public accusation of “You lie” to President Obama during his speech on health care. Although much disagreement exists on the motivation behind the comment and whether Congress’ rebuke was necessary, I find it a very interesting case study on communication. Most of us are barely aware of our own motivation for saying and doing things. So I won’t even try to venture a guess what the motivation was behind that comment. The questions I hold about the comment are the following:
Did that statement move the matter at hand closer to or further away from resolution? Was the comment made passionately but with respect? Was it a statement of fact or one of judgment? Did it set a good example for productive communication and resolution of issues if everyone were to take on that behavior?
This particular example contains a number of elements of what frequently goes wrong with our communication.
- Speaking a personal judgment or assessment as if it were the truth. A truth is something that can be proven as fact. Although the health care bill may be unclear on the issue prompting the comment or Congressman Wilson may not trust that it will play out as being represented, those represent judgments or assessments, not proven truths. I have never seen a case where representing opinions and judgments as the truth brought two sides of an issue closer together. It’s fine to state an opinion or feeling but it should be clearly stated that that is what it is.
- Thinking disrespect will get our point across. In our culture, I think it is safe to say that shouting an accusation at anyone who legitimately has the floor to speak is considered disrespectful. Disrespect is rarely, if ever, a way to open someone else’s ears to our viewpoint. It is a good way to shut down conversation, flare emotions and create deep divides.
- Ineffective use of passion. Passion can be a powerful emotion and when used appropriately it can display urgency, deep caring, and commitment. But conveyed in the wrong way (see 1 and 2 above), it can convey a divisive and destructive wallop. If everyone on the Senate floor behaved in that manner during that speech, I suspect no information at all would have been gained by anyone. Can democracy be practiced under those kinds of conditions? I think we know the answer.
We have many tough issues which we must address in our nation to allow all of our people a chance for prosperity. And productive conversation and deep listening represent our only hope of resolution. Rather than debate motivations and the rebuke handed out perhaps some reflection and dialogue on how to better generate productive conversation is in order.
