Unintentional Communication

This Republican primary season has become a fine example of the difficulties of directing communications to a limited audience. All of these would-be nominees try all-out to woo the likely Republican primary voters, essentially Tea Party activists. None of them seems to notice that the entire country watches newscasts, and only Fox News has any sympathy for them. This leads to fascinating spectacles again and again.

Early on, we saw Sarah Palin spouting whatever came to mind, complete with a reality TV show and a bus tour, only to realize that continuing as a celebrity is safer and pays more than actually trying to run for President. I suspect that she might have caught on that a majority of the voters do not believe she could see Russia from her front porch.  Her successors almost make her look sensible, and that is a difficult task.

Michelle Bachmann (remember her?) knew she would not have to use facts and figures to please the Tea Party. She was doing well without that, but then Newsweek put her picture on their cover looking crazy.  Really crazy. Someone claimed that "crazy" was the only kind of picture available, and she drowned in the waves of laughter. Ron Paul comes and goes in the polls. The problem with him seems to be honesty. Congressman Paul appears to be a libertarian at heart, and that works fine on issues such as smaller government and lower taxes, but he would rather not outlaw sex or attempt to imprison anybody the Tea Party disapproves of.  Governor Perry of Texas tends to talk like a drunk in a bar, which would be less of a problem if his many competitors pointed it out less often. Herman Cain knew the right words (except for that 9-9-9 thing) but quickly got a reputation for sexual harassment and at least one long-term adulterous affair. The Tea Party does not approve of sex for fun under any circumstances. Mitt Romney has somehow maintained a decent position in the polls through all of this. I suspect he depends on the non-Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, because he makes sense when he talks most of the time. Unfortunately, he has a record that would serve a Democrat well, he changes his stated positions often, and he is a Mormon. While I see Mormons as a kind of fundamentalist Christian, many in the Tea Party see them as some bizarre “other” creature, possibly out to destroy them.

So all of these people parade before the devout followers of Rush Limbaugh et al., trying to reach the Republican convention with enough delegates to grab the nomination so they can run against President Obama.  They debate again and again, looking more and more foolish. They attack each other, using old pictures, past statements, and wild accusations.

The great thing for Obama is that they also parade before the rest of the USA. Obama will not need to spend as much money as usual on making new advertising against whichever one of these people outlasts the others. He can just use video of the debates and information the Republicans have already uncovered in this primary season.

The Republicans seeking the nomination are communicating more effectively than they know. Unfortunately for them, they are telling all Americans, not just the party faithful, who they are.

Book Review: Willful Blindness

Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, by Margaret Heffernan; 2011, Walker & Company, New York.

According to the bio on her book jacket, Margaret Heffernan is a former producer for BBC radio and TV and has been CEO of several interactive media companies. She came across the term “willful blindness” in the transcript of the Enron trial, and it so interested her that she eventually wrote this book about it. The term “willful blindness” means “you are responsible if you could have known, and should have known, something that instead you strove not to see (p. 2).” It matters not whether this avoidance was conscious or not. As with so many books, the subtitle makes the point. This becomes a communication topic because none of us can reach an audience that will not listen.

Heffernan goes on to examine in detail ten important causes of willful blindness, with examples ranging from match.com’s use of affinity (like attracts like) to the role of fatigue in the disastrous explosion at BP’s Texas City oil refinery to the factor of being too sure of one’s ideas in the collapse of the world economy.  She makes interesting connections by means of these causes. For example, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, held onto the idea that “free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies (quoted on p. 59)” long after the derivatives market endangered the economy in ways that he, of all observers, should have seen. He chose to hold onto what he already believed rather than see the facts in front of his face, a trait he shares with much of the world’s population, including some folks who believed that an alien space ship would save them from a world-ending flood back in 1954. Even after their entire prophecy proved false, most of them continued to believe, just as many American politicians continue to believe in “free, competitive markets” today.

Heffernan uses a chapter to examine each of the ten causes of willful blindness, and then gives us hope by including a chapter on people who do not blind themselves and one more chapter on ways to reduce one’s own blindness. Heffernan weaves her stories together very neatly around her themes, never losing track of the need to keep the reader involved. She uses a wide range of history and research to support her ideas, but this book reads far better than an academic paper. (Following up the endnotes is optional.) She gives a good bibliography and index, each of which increases the academic value and believability of Willful Blindness.

If you ever ask, “What was he thinking?” or “How could they not know?” read this book.

Willful Blindness

According to a book of the same name, "willful blindness" is a legal term for ". . . the idea that there is an opportunity for knowledge, and a responsibility to be infomed, but it is shirked." (Willful Blindness, by Margaret Heffernan, copyright 2011; Walker Publishing Company: New York.) I am still reading the book, and learning from it. The first three chapters discuss important reasons people ignore or fail to process important information. Expect a book review when I finish the reading. Unfortunately, that must take a back seat to my college courses, but I will persist.

I hope the importance of this to communication hits readers here immediately. Talking to people who fail to listen even if your subject affects them wastes your time and energy. Finding ways through the barriers stands to improve your communication skills much more than using "might" rather than "may" when some expert deems that appropriate.

Stay tuned for further discussions of this and related subjects.