Talk to Think
“The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.” Prov 15:2
I heard an interesting program on NPR’s Talk of the Nation last week. The guest was Don Tapscott. He is the author of a Wikinomics and thinks about how the web can change government.
What set off this train of thought, however, is his discussion about the value of blogging as an exercise in intellectual exploration and how the current political climate doesn’t tolerate it.
First a bit a background.
It is a physiological fact that there are two kinds of people in the world. In one case, brains have a very short path from conception to vocalization. Their speech mirrors their thought process. In the other case, thoughts go through a risk assessment before they hit the vocalization part of the brain. The speech of this group is much more cautious and mirrors conclusions rather than concepts because they have already done their evaluation before they talk. There isn’t anything inherently better about one mode versus another because, if you believe in evolution, there is clearly need in society for both voices. We may be approaching a time in politics, however, where “Talk to Think” politicians are going to be in favor.
Here’s the basic premise. Blogging is the modern equivalent of the town square. Those who are interested can seek out conversations that they find interesting and engage in discussions where hopefully both sides are learning. That can only occur if both sides allow for thoughtful exploration of the subject matter. In other words, in order to have progress, we have to allow each other the opportunity to modify our positions as we learn more about the subject. We have to be able to take the risk of being wrong in order to explore areas that aren’t well known. We have to be able to grow and have our positions reflect that growth.
That can’t happen in the current “Think to Talk” political climate.
Instead we have the example of Senator Obama musing about the motivations of the working poor, and then having that “bitter” comment become the rallying cry for Senator Clinton’s last push to become the Democratic nominee.
In a similar vein, Senator McCain was musing about how long troops might be on the ground in Iraq. Using our experiences in Germany, Japan, and Korea, he speculated that there could be troops in Iraq for a long time. That became a rallying cry for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who used that comment to suggest that Senator McCain supported another 100 years of combat in Iraq.
Senator Clinton had one of these moments last week when she suggested that there was wisdom in her continued campaign because previous nominations took dramatic turns before the convention. She used the example of the Bobby Kennedy assassination in 1968 to illustrate her point and almost immediately realized that larger implications of that comment.
Don Tapscott feels that this problem will, to some degree, fix itself. He feels that those who participate in social networks and support blogs not only understand, but are hungry for participatory government. They want to be engaged. They want to have input. They want a public transparent decision-making process where you can track progress toward a compromise. Senator Obama’s appeal to the young voter is based as much on this as it is his strong opposition to the war in Iraq. When he talks about change, this is what the younger voter hears. In their minds he “gets it”, and they are responding in numbers that we haven’t seen since the last peace movement.
The real question is whether he will be able engage enough older voters who are still stuck in “perfect President” paradigm to get elected.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
good thoughts.
the issue for obama is this: i along with many of my conservitive friends like the guy. we are all tired of hearing democrats “yelling” at us and in every sentence attacking us. so we like him as in “we are not red states or blue state but the united states.” so we’re on his side. the problem is his change message is largely unexplained.
just one layer down into the onion is the fact he has NEVER signed on to a bi-partisan bill. he’s never reached across the aisle. so what is he willing to change? im willing to listen but he really hasn’t said anything yet. (as we know thats what a candidate who wants to be elected is suppose to do, say nothing)
May 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Keith,
Good to hear from you.
Here’s a good website with summaries of the views of all the candidates in and apples to apples form.
http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/barackobama.htm
So you can see clearly how Obama’s stated positions compare with Clinton and McCain.
Jeff
June 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am
After reading and hearing about the delegates from Michigan, I am truly sickened. I am one vote - it is my constitutional right. There is a process by which those who wish to seek office must follow. Obama did not. Therefore, I cannot rationalize why we would award delegates to a person (not a candidate - remember, he didn’t register) who is ineligible for any votes? I was not allowed delegates or votes - perhaps I wanted to run. Puerto Rico and Guam - which aren’t States each get a vote. ONLY the registered voters in Michigan do not get a vote - instead, we must split the votes with a person that didn’t and doesn’t give Michigan a second thought. I am completely appalled and at this point, I think Michigan should leave the Union - yes, leave it. Perhaps as a non-US state, my taxes will be less, we’ll be able to move all the auto manufacturing here and charge huge export mark-ups to the US..Think about it, Michigan can get filthy rich - like Dubai. Am I sounding crazy? Yeah, well that’s what happens when my constitutional rights exist no longer because I happen to live in Michigan. BTW - don’t even say that we did something wrong in the primary - we didn’t. New Hampshire started this whole fiasco and the bottom line is that Obama did not regard us as important enough to challenge the party by registering to run - why, because it benefited him - kind of why oil is so high, it benefits Bush and Cheney.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
MK,
Thanks for your reply.
I have to take issue, though, with your claim that you have a consitutional right to vote in the Democratic primary. You do have a right to vote in the general elections, but the primaries and their rules are determined by the individual parties.
Also I think that Obama was on the democratic ballot in Michigan. When the state democratic leaders (primarily Clinton supporters) moved the date of election, they broke the party’s rules. Both Obama and Edwards asked that their names be withdrawn. Clinton didn’t. It would have worked for her, if she had gone on to capitalize on her early lead, but the rise of Obama caused that strategy to backfire.
As far as that being a cause to justify succession, it’s pretty weak.
If you want to talk about the current administration’s willingness to allow Michigan to languish as the rest of the country enjoyed the Bush “boom”, you might have a stronger argument.
jeff
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
Good response Jeff, “fair AND balanced.” You should go to work for Fox….
MK, your issue is with the party in who’s primary you chose to vote.
Also, because I hear this a lot can you give me an explanation as to how bush and cheney benefited from high oil prices? I’m not sure how $4 gas, which in a lot of the publics eye is the final nail in their coffin and has pole numbers now south of 30%, has been much of a benifit to them? I’d love to hear your thoughts.