"Bowling isn't a sport," someone once told me, "because the best women play it as well as the best men."
I don't enjoy bowling, but I was deaf to him after that sentence. His reason was true: the best women do bowl as well as the best men. I just don't care.
More below the fold....
Fred Whispering, Part II - Listen for Values
This week Morning Feature will discuss how to be more convincing progressive advocates – whispering to Fred, our archetypal median voter – with a primary focus on listening. Yesterday we role-played some examples based on President Obama's Oval Office address. Today we consider why listening matters. Tomorrow we explore the techniques of active listening. Saturday we'll discuss how to use what we learn by listening to be better advocates.
But all of that begs the question of why we should talk to ordinary voters like our archetypal Fred. Shouldn't we focus our voices on President Obama and other elected leaders? They make policy, after all. Why should we care what Fred thinks?
The answer is that President Obama and most other elected leaders care what Fred thinks. We saw in January that the best predictor of responses to health reform among Senate Democrats was not campaign contributions, but polling data. If a majority of voters in a state supported health reform, their Democratic senators supported it. If a majority of voters in a state opposed it, their Democratic senators demanded concessions. By definition, any "majority of voters" includes the median voter, whom we call Fred. At least on high-profile issues where there is extensive public debate, Fred's opinion matters to elected Democrats. If we progressives want elected Democrats to support more progressive policies, we need Fred's support. To reach up to our elected leaders, we must reach out to Fred.
A "different-information voter."
Fred is a moderate independent voter, and he doesn't get his news from talk radio or Fox News. Media surveys show Fred doesn't watch cable news unless they're covering a major breaking event. He may turn on the network evening news, or not. He doesn't subscribe to a daily newspaper. He scans headlines when he sees a newspaper, or while he's online doing something else. Fred is often criticized as a "low-information voter," but that isn't true.
Fred is a "different-information voter." He gets his news from listening to friends, coworkers, and other people talk about the news. He gets his news around the coffee pot, in checkout lines and waiting rooms, and emails and other comments from folks he knows. Some of that is bad information. Much is better than you'd guess, because it's first-hand. Fred knew the economy was in trouble long before the media used the word "recession." He'd knew it from friends who were losing jobs or couldn't pay their mortgages or medical bills. And Fred knows more about what's happening in his local community than do most "news junkies."
You can be one of Fred's news sources, but only when you join those face-to-face conversations. When progressives avoid those conversations - or have them only with other progressives - Fred gets only conservative input. We need to reach out to Fred, and that has to start with listening.
Back to bowling.
I don't enjoy bowling. There's nothing wrong with it, except that it made that tendon at the base of my thumb hurt. Maybe I didn't have the right kind of ball, or didn't hold it right. No matter. There are lots of things to enjoy and limited time. But for many it's a good social activity and a fun way to get some exercise. Is bowling a "sport?" I don't know, and don't care. Those arguments usually come down to "Do I enjoy it?" where the 'standards' by which the question is answered are just more personal opinion.
Such as "Bowling isn't a sport because the best women play it as well as the best men." The underlying 'standard' was sexist: "men should be better than women." The person who said that had probably used the argument before, successfully, with others. If it convinced others, why not try it with me?
But with me it backfired. From the moment he said that, I lost interest in his views on what is or isn't a sport. He would have known that had he been listening to my side of the conversation, because one of the examples I'd used for my favorite sport was the USA women winning the 1999 Women's World Cup in soccer. I used other examples from women's sports as well.
It shouldn't have been a surprise that I wouldn't share his "men should be better than women" standard. That was what I call a value-statement: a preference or priority for evaluating information. Most value-statements can be expressed as "This is or should be better or more important than That," and if you dissect any logical argument down to its core, you find value-statements.
Values are as important as facts or logic.
The problem with that man's statement about bowling was not his logic, or his facts. Here is the syllogism, with the qualifiers "the best" omitted for simplicity:
- Value-Statement: Men should be able to do a sport better than women.
- Fact-Statement: Women can bowl as well as men. Therefore,
- Conclusion: Bowling is not a sport.
His syllogism - if not-A then not-B; not-A; therefore, not-B - is logically valid. And his fact-statement is true: women can bowl as well as men. If effective advocacy were only about facts and logic, as often assumed, his statement should have convinced me. But it didn't, and problem was his value-statement. I can't "disprove" his value-statement; it's a matter of personal opinion. But I disagree with it,
so an argument grounded on that value-statement will not convince me.
The same is true in reaching out to Fred. No matter how true our facts or how sound our logic, our arguments will only convince Fred if they are built on value-statements with which Fred agrees. The best way to know that is to listen to Fred. You'll need to read between the lines and ask questions to ensure you don't misread between those lines. We'll talk more about how to do that tomorrow. But Fred will tell you his value-statements ... if you listen.
It's not Fred's fault when our arguments fall on deaf ears. Too often it's our ears that are deaf.
+++++
Happy Thursday!
Crossposted from Blogistan Polytechnic Institute (BPICampus.com)