Reading my birthday copy of Frank Luntz's new book, "Words That Work," I considered carefully his subtitle, "It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."
Luntz is, in my humble opinion, an outstanding political scene-watcher and voter-watcher. For a long time, he has studied what politicians and leaders say, how they say it, and how hearers perceive and react.
I think Luntz might agree that when we hear the words ,d phrases of politicians, sometimes we do not get the true meaning. We often interpret messages in our favorite contexts. We need to ask ourselves if we are assuming a message rather than understanding the real message. Or, the candidates' messages behind the message.Are we listening, folks, or are we, as usual, hearing what we hope or want to hear?
Luntz tells a story about one journalist's scathing report on Ronald Reagan. The writing looked to be spot-on to convince the public against Reagan. However, Reagan's team was as happy as a clam about the piece.
Why were Reagan's people not crying "foul!"? Because the journalists' words were accompanied by a remarkably appealing photo of Mr. Reagan, a smiling, friendly, and very approachable Reagan with the U. S. Capitol in the background on a sunny day.
The photo inserted a specific context into the journalist's well-trained words, and people responded to the context, not only to the words.
In the upcoming presidential election, photos and words will be used to try to hide contexts. For example, one way to criticize candidates--and both sides will do this--is to criticize their votes against "important" legislation. Such legislation usually has titles like "the secure social security act," "save the dying wetlands act," or "transportation modernization act." A candidate voting against acts with names like that (and most bill names have emotionally-charged wording), will find many voters shunning them for it. Contexts and earmarks will be ignored.
However, here are likely contexts to consider, and they deal with those pesky earmarks. Some candidates have trouble with earmark legislation not because of a bill's main topic but the earmarked "causes" that are added. Earmarks traditionally are thrown in by other senators that are not the key sponsors of a particular bill. And, earmarks traditionally have little or no connection to the bill's main purpose.
For example, a "secure social security act" could include an earmark to allow certain meat producers to by-pass FDA or USDA approval. A "save the wetlands act" could have an earmark to include grants to Iowa and other states with no wetlands. A "transportation modernization act" could have an earmark buried inside it for a multi-million dollar grant to New York state for the study of the origins of country and western music!
Put into context, we can see why a senator or two might vote against all such legislation until the earmarks would be removed. Yet, one candidate who voted for those bills could make the other candidate, who did not vote for them, appear to be careless or even downright cruel. "After all," they might imply, "isn't a senator cruel or lobby-controlled who will not support strengthening social security, or saving wetlands, or modernizing transportation?"
In the matter of campaign financing, both McCain and Obama have been criticized in The Washington Post. McCain caught flak because he raised private monies in the primaries, although he said he would take only public money as his party's candidate in the general election. Obama said the same. Then Obama caught flak for backing away from his position to accept public funds.
How can we react to words describing these seeming inconsistencies unless we know the contexts, rather than knowing only the popular spin or dodge that well-chosen and well-delivered words, from either side, may throw at us? We need some facts and insight, folks.
Words change. Meanings get distorted. We need a sense of who the candidates are, their records, lives, and real meanings--a context as broad and deep as possible.
I think almost every voter knows by now who they plan to vote for. However, I hope the times we live in will give us pause and cause us to listen to what we know (context) and what we perceive behind the words that work.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
