Writing Lessons from Obama and Hilary
Obama and Hilary have been a dominant force in the news since they started campaigning. This is saying something, as I am not even American. Their long battle has taught me a couple of related lessons that I wanted to share with you.
Attacks and Negativity Damage All
While attacks are one way to get attention, and also serve to position yourself relative to your competitor, in the end the damage is not localized and you end up soiling your own reputation.
Think about it, what do we say about someone who campaigns this way?
“They stooped to a new low”
“She is fighting dirty”
“Smearing the other candidate”
“Sowing the seeds of discord and dissent”
Is this the kind of thing candidates want to be associated with?
What has this to do with writing?
- How many blogs do you see that go on the attack, as a content strategy or as a means of self promotion?
- When you see someone ragging on someone or something popular to make a point, how do you feel?
- Do you see community leaders saying “you are with us or against us”? (eg. why shouldn’t an Apple fan respect Bill Gates? Why is it not OK for an open source advocate to recommend a piece of proprietary software if it’s the best for the job?)
- The whole “we don’t like these people, we are better than them, because”, does that work with you or make you think the worst of the writer?
Sometimes we do have to criticize to make a serious point, but that does not mean we should label the person. Always, if you must criticize, try to criticize behavior.
Positivity and Solutions are Persuasive
When I see two people argue like Obama and Hilary, I look for the person who is offering ideas and solutions, and I do the same in my reading and learning.
It’s impossible to make a good decision long term based on fear-mongering and negative attacks. Hate and bashing only serves to remove choices, not help make the right one. Positivity and inventive solutions provide you something to get behind, something motivating and enabling.
Ideas Bind, Attacks Divide
When you write you can say what you don’t like or you can offer ideas for a better way. I try to do the latter, though of course being only human it doesn’t always come through like that. My idea of something better today is to try to spin a criticism into an offer of positive advice and see how different the reaction and results can be.
Summary
The main point is, what do you want to achieve with your piece of writing? If you want to make someone or a whole group feel bad, then go on the attack. If on the other hand you want to help, provide answers, then you are far better giving real advice and ideas. Offer something constructive, it is best all round.
What do you think? Have I mis-read the situation, have I just alienated half my readers? Am I being unfair? Do you agree with me about my point of being positive and offering solutions? Please share your thoughts in the comments …
Posted on June 10th, 2008 by Chris Garrett in Writing
It’s an age old tradition in politics.
It would be refreshing if a campaigner concentrated on what THEY’RE going to do and NOT what the others have FAILED to do.
Personally I think that attacking a sector is only of benefit if it is to warn a larger group of something real and harmful - and this can be done in an informative and advisory way and not in a vindictive way.
I don’t read a particular writer in my niche because this writer is ALWAYS out on the attack. On Twitter you asked if “you’ve just alienated yourself by writing this piece”… Well the writer I’m referring to has alienated himself through his public attacks! This writer provides a service offering for me…good or bad…I don’t care much for it. He’s diminished it’s value… All I see is a tainted brand and that tells me the offering isn’t any good.
Am I wrong? You might say so…but I’ll tell ya. That’s how the world works. As consumers we’re influenced heavily by what a brand says.
Basically I agree with you. But doesn’t it depend on the kind of blog you are writing? Here in Germany a number of blogs are politically oriented blogs or blogs critical of some kind of media (for example a blog very critically referring to the “Bildzeitung” (very yellow press paper). To attack is their business.
Whereas I myself, humbly photoblogging away, don’t see any sense in attacking someone… Just my two cents.
Ulla
Fantastic article, Chris. The words ideas bind, attacks divide are powerful and represent some sort of ultimate truth that works and can be applied on so many different levels and in different areas.
People should be able to take the core message from this piece and use it regardless of their own political views. If they can’t… well, pretty sad to let your life be run by something so divisive as politics
There’s a little saying, I’m not sure where it comes from but it goes something like this… “if you give somebody a gift and they refuse that gift, who does the gift belong to? It belong to you”. In other words, anything you give out, will ultimately come back to you.
Attacks, negativity, complaining etc etc I totally agree that it hurts everybody what what many people fail to see if that it also hurts the person who is dishing it out!
I couldn’t agree more with this post Chris.
I saw an 18 minute speech by Tony Robbins at TED a while back…
He spoke about the reason why Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election wasn’t because of vote rigging - but rather because he didn’t capture the public’s imagination in the way that he’s been able to since (through his Inconvenient Truth series etc).
So I’d agree with you about gathering people behidn ideas - to a point.
However, what I saw of Ron Paul, he was positive and worked to gather people behind ideas.. It didn’t gather much traction though…
I’d like to believe you’re right, my friend. I certainly do my best to operate from a place of positivity. And, I am not drawn to those who develop a platform based in hatred or attack. It just doesn’t make sense to spend so much of my personal energy on negativity.
But, I’ve also seen people build entire careers and livings around the ability to artfully vent, from writers to bloggers, from politicians to pundits. There is almost always a certain segment of any population that finds solace and comradery in someone else’s rant.
And, the more gifted at the art of persuasion, the more powerful the attacks become and the more alluring the attacker becomes to those whose opinions they represent. As they say, “misery loves company.”
Fortunately, there seem to be enough people who rally to the cause of constructive/positive conversation that the voice of destructive energy is often drowned out. Nonetheless, all you need to do is turn on the Sunday morning commentary shows in the U.S. to see the myriad pundits succeeding on the back of constant criticism.
“Sometimes we do have to criticize to make a serious point, but that does not mean we should label the person. Always, if you must criticize, try to criticize behavior.”
This is good advice. Unfortunately, the American Left does not have good ideas, nor intellectually defensible positions on their “socialist/communitarian” government model. That is why the campaigns descend into ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging. It is also why many good people will not go into public service/elected office.
Keep your eyes on the new media, Chris, especially a year from now. There is going to be a monstrous back-lash, no matter who gets elected president of the good ol’ US of A. Mark my words, the people aren’t going to take much more.
Chris, I’m totally with you on this. I mean, there are some blogger or ‘entrepreneurs’, who think that they can play god, be controversial and have the right to criticize and attack on everyone. They might know a thing about their trade, but it’s highly unnecessary for a reader to gain in so much unnecessary negative energy and listen to a blogger complaining all month long.
From what I’ve seen, some of them will build up a strong readership at first, and then slowly start going downhill because of their nature.
I’m not saying being nice always works. But clearly, there exists a line between being an arrogant fool and logically criticizing someone.
Cheers!
I do not believe that critical writing has to be about bashing and removing choices. In fact in an incoherent society, full of fear and apathy, the voice of the critic can serve to create choice.
It is a double edge sword however. Where there is fairness and harmony the critic must remain silent.
Stephen Ryan
Brand Killer Robots
I have to agree - if you have to resort to negativity, does that mean you’re compensating for a lack of substance and are trying to deflect attention? But I would say in the case of Obama and Hillary - that they really didn’t get THAT nasty, all things considered. Yes, there’s damage and it’s unfortunate that campaigns are run this way - when you look at the two, they are really similar in their views.
I think, politically speaking, that campaigns focus on what’s news - and negative attacks get attention. There’s very little substance because the candidates are focused on the soundbite. They don’t have the forum to get substance out. The media focuses on the horse raise rather than real issues. Another sad aspect is that if the candidates DON’T attack back or come out swinging, they may not be perceived as strong. I really don’t feel we get the true sense of the candidate in the campaign. Look at Hillary’s final speech where she talked about how her campaign paved the way for women going forward running for president. It was much more human and real. Imagine if her whole campaign had that tone . . .
For most, positive, substantive, two-way dialogue should be the goal.
This is a great post, Chris. I definitely agree with you on all points. However, I also agree with Ulla that it is somewhat dependent upon your audience. If you’re writing a highly ideological political blog, your audience may expect you to attack opposing ideologues.
Of course, if that’s what your audience expects, it’s because you’ve trained them to expect it by writing that way from day one. Best to avoid it in the first place, if you ask me.
Chris
You are so right on this one. I am almost embarassed with the choice of candidates we as Americans have put forward. If we had someone that would just say what they plan to do….even if I totally disagreed would at least be a start.
It is also unfortunate that in today’s world it seems that if you disagree with someone on the facts, you are attacking them. We as a society have convinced ourselves that any disent is an attack. What happened to go old debate?
As a right wing wacko I don’t care for any of them…but I have to vote even though there is no “none of the above” ballot choice.
Great observation Chris
Chris, articles like this one are why I still subscribe to your blog. Great article.
You’re right on, Chris… somehow, here in the US, we’ve lost track of what we’re trying to do… our campaigns are way too long, way to expensive and way to vicious… I keep hearing that hate speech is popular, but I don’t know a single person who likes it. OTOH, when I listen to the conservative talkers on the radio, it seems they have a market… and maybe there are liberal haters out there too - I want my blog, my writing and my life to contribute.
Thanks for this one.
A
Three thoughts:
1) A statesman is a disinterested promoter of the public good. A great statesman (or person) puts the national and public good ahead of ego or party.
2) A leader helps people accomplish a mission. A great leader builds up people to the point they put aside differences and pull together to accomplish the mission.
3) A criticism of another is just a senseless rant, unless an alternative solution or positive advice is given at the same time.
So I’m with you Chris, when you write, “Hate and bashing only serves to remove choices, not help make the right one. Positivity and inventive solutions provide you something to get behind, something motivating and enabling.”
Chris,
One of my blogs is one in which I expose the abusive and controlling tactics of a bible-based cult which masquerades as a church.
My whole gig…is sort of negative…which is the exposing part and warning others…but I am going to take a loot at my blog now in light of your article.
Even though those I am writing to are a specific group who need to see and hear the things they already know but are too afraid to thing about…it is very constructive to provide an alternative. To provide the hope for a better future.
Even though I would like to think of myself as not being someone who is just…in your word “ragging” on this group…I really appreciate the word of caution.
Thansks so much…from one of your very new readers.
Tracy