Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning Feature: Sticky Narratives, Part I - How Many Are We? (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agree, of course (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hannah, JanF, NCrissieB, addisnana

    We can't make a case to Fred that depends on him understanding an arcane concept that he is not familiar with. And we really can't get mad at Fred and call him stupid because of that unfamiliarity. Both because that's bad politics, and because Fred really isn't stupid. He just doesn't live inside our brains, thinking all the same stuff that we think.

    Al Gore proved that with his film 'An Inconvenient Truth', where he had two uninterrupted hours to explain climate change in systemic terms. Not too many Fred's left the theater failing to understand, and the overall impact of the film was to completely change the political defaults around the climate change issue.

    Now, we're not often going to have two full hours to explain our systems case, and most of us won't have so well developed an explanation ready to go anyway. But we might be able to talk about relevant, connected parts of a system. Like for instance, the way that our broken, wasteful health care system hurts the economy, so fixing health care is necessary for job creation. If Fred started the conversation worried about jobs, he'll leave it wanting to help Obama fix health care.

    If even a limited systems approach won't work for a particular Fred, then a specific example of how rising insurance costs have resulted in jobs being cut at a local business might do the trick. By illustrating systemic effects, we can activate systemic awareness even if we never use system-type vocabulary like "the economy" or "capitalism".

    Oh, almost forgot-- huggs etc!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site