Name Calling and Political Effectiveness

Recently, I was in an online conversation about name calling. It had been suggested in the group that we refrain from using words like "idiot" or other derogatory terms when referring to people.
One person asked:

Will the village idiot be a better prez if we don't call him an idiot?

I replied:

Your post about censorship got me thinking.

First of all, you are absolutely correct about censorship. It would be a drag to have to remember a detailed set of rules about what was appropriate to post and what wasn't. Also, who would argue against common sense? Not I!

---------------- Will the village idiot be a better prez if we don't call him an idiot? -----------------------

Probably not, but I think we might be more likely to do something about the things he is doing if we don't.

What do you think of the following?:

The issues I have with name-calling as related to public figures have to do with effectiveness, not correctness. By shifting the focus, when speaking of an individual, to a global characteristic (like idiotic), it's harder to focus on the idiotic or stupid thing they did. It may also tend to dilute the significance in our own minds of what they did.

If I read, "That idiotic Bush appointed Jerry Fallwell to his cabinet," the word "idiotic" dilutes the statement for me. At some level I can justify it to myself, saying "Of course he did! He's an idiot." And if I were the author of the above statement, I may feel that my calling him an idiot constitutes at least 'some' action on my part.

Name-calling can also lead to the danger of underestimating the true seriousness ofa particularly idiotic thing. Since Bush isn't really an 'idiot' (only a person who 99.9% of the time makes what we consider harmful and dangerous decisions and choices) we lose sight of the fact that in many areas he is adequate and in some areas he excels.

Despite the fact he may have stolen the election twice, he has convinced MILLIONS of people to like him and even more MILLIONS to vote for him. He is far from an 'idiot'. What we really want to use, I think, are far more extreme adjectives. But we're lazy.

Instead of saying "He's an idiot," we would would possibly be more accurate in saying something like "He, on a day-to-day basis, is causing more suffering in the world than possibly any other human being. He's the first convicted felon of a president, has been convicted of at least three crimes in US courts prior to his presidency, and has numerous countries and individuals charging him with war crimes. Every time I see him smirk and pat someone on the back with that wink of his, I think of the babies with their heads blown off, the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died in his war, the Iraqis who were tortured at Abu Ghraib, and the prisoners being held without charges or rights in Guantanamo."

His actions aren't those of an idiot. His actions seem to be those of a person corrupted by the power of their office and circumstance.

And every day he is continuing his reign of terror in our world. And because we believe (those of us who do) that his actions are and will be causing the suffering of millions of people, and the continued destruction of the environment, don't you think we need to be more effective than ever in creating a climate conducive to political change?

If what we want is to feel better, then calling him a name might work.

If, on the other hand, we are truly appalled and want to do something (or ask someone else to do something) it is much more useful to be as descriptive and accurate as possible (read: less emotional). This is not because emotional is BAD, it's just because it doesn't work as well when we want to connect to others who may not understand our personal brand of emotional language.

The other factor to consider is that we are hampered by our online environment. The non-verbal contexts of our words are mostly absent here. Emotionally laden words NEED to be heard in the nonverbal context in which they are spoken or their meanings are likely to be misinterpreted. This is especially true here where many of us have never even met the people whose words we are interpreting!

Here's a three-stepped model of communication I try to use from time to time: It's somewhat simple (and it's loosely based on Harry Stack Sullivan's model of Interpersonal Dynamics which I learned From Jack Butler)

A. Inclusion. Include the other person or people in your world. Let them know that they are valued and respected by you.

B. Orientation. This is where the need to be as descriptively accurate as possible comes in handy. This is the 'meat and potatoes' of the communication. You are orienting the other person to your reality in a clear a way as possible. If you fail here....it will seem as if they just don't 'get it.'

Orienting another to our reality is difficult to do even in person, never-the-less online. This is because our reality is a combination of events and experiences. The two need to be separated. Events can be disputed and negotiated; experiences are non-negotiable and generally include feelings.

C. Direction. This is the purpose of the communication. Once you have included and oriented another or others....it's time to look towards the future.

This is the "Where are we going to go with this" phase. If the first two steps were successful, this phase may go well also. If, however, the communication has fallen apart during either of the first two stages, it's unlikely you and the other (or others) will be able to look ahead. You'll probably still be mired (usually in an unpleasant manner) in the first two parts of this process (usually arguing about the other's 'experience'!)

The direction stage is where you plan your action and then act your plan. A successful communication usually produces a successful result. (ie two people decide to see a movie, choose one, and then actually go off and see it)

Does this make any sense to you (or anyone here)?

To sum up: My purpose in this post is to generate a greater awareness of how we communicate with each other online. The reason I want to do this is so that we are all more effective at getting from this group what we want (friendship, connectedness, laughter, etc.) and also so that we can be more effective at creating a better world.

Can you tell I take to heart the Horace Mann quote: "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"?