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

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.”

Thanks for this one.

A

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

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.

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.

It is a double edge sword however. Where there is fairness and harmony the critic must remain silent.

Stephen Ryan
Brand Killer Robots

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!

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.

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

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.