Political Conversation

Richard Ostrofsky
March, 2000
Whether or not school systems and communications media are directly
under state control as instruments of mass persuasion, they will be key
participants of political conversation by the nature of their business.
Schools have the task of preparing young, impressionable minds for
participation in society. Inevitably this puts them in the business of
inculcating values and sentiments and habits, as well as skills and facts. The
media are in the business of collecting and holding the attention of an
audience. Inevitably, they too will find themselves propagating values and
sentiments of direct relevance to public affairs and politics.
The interesting thing about these institutions from a political
viewpoint is the dialogue – or better, the tacit bargaining that takes place
between originators and recipients over the content of the communications
taking place. Of course, this same tacit bargaining can be observed in
almost any market. What the vendor wishes to make and what the customer
hopes to buy are seldom exactly the same product. I would like to buy a car
that did not get rust holes within ten years from the salt they put on our
winter streets. I would like a stable operating system on my computer – one
without so many glitzy, irritating features that did not crash every few days.
There are economic and technical reasons why manufacturers design
products that only approximate to, rarely exactly match, the wish-lists and
priorities of their customers. But in the world of communications, an item
produced will differ from its consumers' preferences and expectations for
reasons of value and judgment. The article that a columnist wants to write,
the film a studio wants to make, the course a school board and then a
teacher want to give are not necessarily cheaper or more profitable than the
one I want, but they present a different viewpoint. Very probably they do so
because they hope to influence mine toward their own. They do not merely
frustrate my preference; they hope to change it.
But at the same time, even in seeking to influence my viewpoint and
values they must still cater to them to some extent, like any tradesman who
wants me to buy his product. There is a basic principle of influence here:
Whoever hopes to sway me must first join with me. He must persuade me
that he is on my side, if he hopes to win me to his.
What follows, in the schools, in the media, in every situation where
people seek to influence the values and perceptions of other people, is a
subtle game of seduction and second-guessing. On any given occasion, (the
present not excepted), the speaker or writer may be telling you what he
thinks. He may be telling you what he thinks you want to hear. Or, he may
be telling you what he wants you to think, and what he wants you to think
he thinks when, in fact, he thinks nothing of athe kind and knows damn well
that he is selling you a bill of goods. As the saying goes, "Sincerity is the
main thing. Once you can fake that, you can fake anything."
Of course, there are many honest writers and teachers, and more than a
few honest journalists and politicians, presenting ideas to which they
themselves are sincerely and validly committed. I am not urging complete
skepticism here, nor am I simply preaching a little sermon on the
importance of critical judgment. Rather, I wish to make a point about the
nature of political conversation, and (for that matter) all public discourse:
The ideas that propagate therein and come to dominate it are not necessarily
the outcome of collective experience and thought on a given matter. Rather,
they are the outcome of collective story-telling where the stories that prevail
are the ones a public finds it either gratifying or materially rewarding either
to tell or to hear. It is for this reason that "Perception is reality in politics." It
is for this reason that political history is such an unedifying tale of
deception and delusion. It is just "politics as usual," and has been going on
forever. The problem is, it is no longer good enough.
Today we expect government to do much more than repel invasions and
keep the peace – its crucial functions in the past. We expect it to regulate a
million aspects of a complex society under threat from its own dynamism.
In today's world, common honesty and a degree of political trust are
preconditions for the roles we expect government to play. Correspondingly,
we need a much higher standard of integrity in our political conversation
than has heretofore been customary, which will surely require a full
redesign of our political and discursive institutions. As they stand, under our
present adversarial arrangements, the people best positioned to know what
is happening, or what is needed, find no percentage in telling a straight
story.