Not Everyone is Trying to Screw You Over
Megan McArdle wrote a nice post at the Atlantic questioning the over the top criticism of Reed Hastings of Netflix and other leaders who make seemingly terrible decisions. Her post is mainly regarding business leaders, but the same logic applies to politicians and other public leaders.
It’s not a popular position to take at the moment, but the majority of elected representatives and public leaders really are generally smart, competent, and want the best for their constituents. Simply because a President, Senator, Judge, etc makes a decision that you believe is hugely idiotic, doesn’t mean the decision maker is pulling the strings on some complex web of corrupt and backdoor negotiations intended to screw you over.
Most elected representatives have built lives around public service and have sacrificed monetarily and personally by running for a position that comes with great scrutiny.
Of course there are cases of horribly corrupt politicians and staff out to gain personally at the expense of the public. And skepticism is to be encouraged in all venues, especially policy making. It is the duty of an informed public to cast a critical eye on decision-making leaders.
But assuming the worst out of every public leader without seeing an issue from multiple points is doing a disservice to the elected individual, the public he is charged to serve, and the process itself. Sometimes, there are no good decisions to be made, but it doesn’t mean someone is out to screw you over.
Public Messages
The 2008 campaign changed everything. The ability of Facebook and other internet-based tools that allowed communities (online and off) to organize and campaign more efficiently and effectively combined with the Obama campaign’s proficiency and foresight to use those tools changed politics forever.
From now on, whoever has the technological savvy and aptitude in manipulating “social media” channels will rule politics and elections.
Well, actually no.
The Obama campaign definitely did something extraordinary during the 2007-2008 election cycle utilizing Facebook and even tapping Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes to lead the virtual organizing efforts. Political participation hit record highs which paid off with record voter turnout and a landslide victory. Turnout among young voters, the electorate targeted by online organizing, was enormous and a major reason why Senator Obama became President Obama.
But that phenomenon was a one-off. Because we’re all familiar now with how social media networks operate, no one has a definite technological advantage.
Facebook has over 400 million users, Twitter usage is skyrocketing, and things like iPhone apps are creating mobile channels for content delivery that more and more people are relying on as a primary source for news and information.
What this means in a political context is that ‘we’ all have people who understand Web 2.0 and the tools for organizing in an online world. ‘We,’ meaning all political shades; right, left and center all understand the need to harness innovative communication strategies.
Analysts of the 2008 campaign characterized the technological savvy of the Obama operation as something unique to the Democrats. That may have been true then, but not now.
Obama did have a technological advantage over McCain and the Republicans, but it’s not an advantage that can be applied to the future. The democratic nature of internet and software applications ensures that the competitive advantage that Obama enjoyed will no longer be there in the next political cycle.
And since everyone has the same tools, the competitive advantage in the political arena will be achieved through message development. The key to future success will be the ability to communicate a message that is informational, sincere and simple.
First, a message must be informational and relevant to each medium. There is no value added in repeating the same talking point in an op-ed, a radio interview, a Facebook page and a Twitter stream. There are so many ways to communicate with constituents that to actually gain value from them, messages need to differentiate in content and tone based on the medium. The same message repeated does not inform, it bores and it desensitizes the audience to the communicator.
Second, the messages need to be sincere in order to gain and retain public trust. The internet and technology has opened up the process of politics and communication to the general public. They understand political spin and deflection and they aren’t fooled when someone uses generalities to avoid answering a question. And just because a policy-maker communicates with constituents 24/7 does not mean they are being transparent.
In fact, I think political communication has only gotten more vague and contrived and deflective with new technology. The politician who actually is sincere and opens up their thought process will be the one who is trusted. The policy-maker who communicates with constituents in a casual yet intelligent manner will differentiate themselves in a world of information overload.
And third, the message must be simple. This isn’t a new concept or revolutionary communication strategy. It’s common sense, but it’s vital. The world is complicated. The US government is complicated. Policy formulation based on complicated data sets and research is difficult to understand. The ability to filter out complexity and turn it into a simplistic useful form is a great challenge and the people who can do this will succeed in winning policy support.
I don’t want to imply that discovering and using new forms of communication are not significant endeavors. Communicators should devote time and resources to these pursuits.
However, content should not be neglected as an afterthought.
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a 20th century German architect, once said, “An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve.” He was describing his challenge as an architect in creating works that were seemingly plain yet at the same time stimulating for a mass audience.
He may as well have been describing political communication. The 21st century policy-maker who masters the ability to communicate messages with “an interesting plainness” will achieve great things.
