Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.
~Marshall McLuhan
As many of you know, my day job involves helping individuals and organizations approach life and business from a more creative perspective. At the core of our methodology is the need to suspend judgment, those assumptions and biases which represent barriers to previously unexplored avenues of inquiry and analysis.
I could not help but think about what assumptions lay behind the Tweeter-in Chief devoting his first day back in Washington to a flood of provocative, questionably factual and in some cases inane 240-character pronouncements. Surely, he cannot believe any of his “enemies and haters” will be swayed by the same narcissistic pontifications which are at the core of their belief he is unfit for office.
The argument, of course, is Twitter is the perfect method of communication in an era when Americans have increasingly short attention spans. But what if that assumption is wrong. What if the majority of voters are insulted because candidates think their constituents are swayed by platitudes rather than facts and cogent arguments. What if the majority of voters put the same faith in Twitter feeds that they do in advertisements which promise they will become part of an awesome social experience if only they drink the right beer or brush their teeth with the right toothpaste.
Please note, I refer to the “majority of voters.” Why? Because I know there are living, breathing Americans who actually believe it is cool to say, “Dilly! Dilly!” much less “Make American Great Again.” Why waste valuable time trying to convince them otherwise. What I do know is a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction in which the country is going. They do not agree with the economic, environmental, international and social policies of the current administration and the GOP Congress. These voters are open to alternatives, but refuse to blindly accept a different national agenda without knowing why it represents an improvement over what is being offered by Trump and his minions.
This is why I personally choose to blog rather than tweet. And what keeps me going, in particular, are comments from readers who refer to the research behind a post. Consider the following example. Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, I published a post titled, “Just the Facts, Ma’am.” It’s purpose was to demonstrate how failure to renew the ban on assault weapons in 2004 had statistically led to more mass shootings and resulting deaths than might otherwise have occurred. To my surprise, a loyal reader who I knew was opposed to new gun control measures including the assault weapons ban, sent me the following email.
This was a well-done post, I appreciated all the metrics!
This is not to say Twitter and Facebook do not have their place. Not as the vehicle for addressing complex issues. But as “pointers” to places where interested voters can access fuller, more documented arguments in support of a policy or position. Ranting about Congress failing to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has done no good. Instead, consider building a tsunami of public support for action on CHIP by linking voters to the research conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. In other words, Twitter and e-mails may raise awareness, but awareness is not enough. What is needed in any movement are knowledgeable advocates and evangelists. And that requires they be armed with more than 240-character slogans.
So, candidates in the 2018 mid-terms and those contemplating a run for the White House in 2020, put down your smartphones. Don’t tweet; take the time to blog. Don’t just tell us what we should be for; tell us WHY!
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP