Talking Ugly: 5 Negative Lessons in Communication From the Election Front

SIphotography/iStock/Getty Images

Commentary

Once Election Day has come and gone, about half of American voters will pop open the champagne, raise a glass or two, and toast the salvation of the Republic. The other half will throw on metaphorical sackcloth and ashes, beat their chests, and declare doomsday for America.

Despite this great divide, all Americans will surely breathe a collective sigh of relief that yet another marathon of news conferences, rallies, speeches, soundbites, and debates has come to an end. For a while at least, we won’t be badgered by the name-calling and slurs, the lack of reason and logic in argumentation, the exaggerations and outright lies, and the verbal mishmash that frequently passed for oratory in this election season.

Because negative examples can be powerful teachers, let’s pause before this celebration and take a brief look at some of the flawed tactics of rhetoric and elocution employed by this year’s candidates. By looking at these stumbling blocks to effective communication, we can avoid making similar mistakes and improve our relationships with family, friends, and fellow workers.

Here are five devices favored by candidates that the rest of us should avoid at all costs.

Blather

Blather, talking at length without making much sense, is a way of ducking questions beneath an underbrush of words. It’s also a technique of misdirection, of being asked a question, for instance, on ways to solve inflation, and instead describing how your family suffered from inflated gas prices during the late 1970s.

And sometimes blather is just a candidate’s style of speech. He or she begins to address the question, but then wanders off into some extraneous topic. One relative dear to me has made this form of blather a high art. Ask her where she bought the coat she’s wearing, and you can expect a 45-minute account of that shopping trip, from leaving her driveway to returning home.

In general, this prattle-and-yap is maddening and boring for the listener. As the loquacious poet Dylan Thomas once said, “Somebody’s boring me.” He paused, then said, “I think it’s me.”

When the conversation matters, blather is a waste of breath.

Bluster

Add threats or aggression to blather, and you have its cousin, bluster. Political candidates generally haul out this tactic when ambushed. Charged with misleading the public about tax hikes, for instance, they haul themselves erect and blurt out their indignation, trying to bury the accusation beneath words, words, and more words.

Bluster is a horrible way to communicate because it pretends righteousness, knowledge, and strength while exuding weakness. Employers who fall into this practice, for instance, will only earn the contempt of their employees.

Good teachers learn early on that trying to bluster past a student’s question is a mistake. They find the best response is, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.” That same answer works just as well whether we’re talking to a supervisor about a work-related problem or a teenage son facing some difficulty in school.

Bragging and Exaggeration

Next time you’re watching a politician’s speech or news conference, play this game. For two minutes, keep track of how many times that person says “I.” That number will give you the size of his or her ego.

The 2024 candidates displayed this flaw of braggadocio over and over again. When asked how they might solve the migrant calamity on the U.S. southern border, they all too often responded with “I will do (fill in the blank).” In fact, without the support of an administrative team, the Congress, and the Border Patrol, they are powerless to do anything.

Add to this egotism the proclivity for exaggeration. This year’s political candidates seemed particularly prone to boosting their credibility by inflating their accomplishments. They’ve claimed honors and awards they’d never received, and were shocked—“Shocked!” as Louis says in “Casablanca”—when they’re outed. Here they displayed their foolishness as well as their inflated egos, forgetting that in the age of the internet, the facts are just a few clicks away.

The message here for us? Be a “we” person instead of a “me” person. In my case, I work with several professionals to put out a product—a piece of writing—while meeting a deadline. Making that article as good as possible in the time allotted is a “we” effort, not a “me” effort.

Bring this attitude to your workplace, your marriage, and your relationship with your children and friends, and you’re on a winning team.

The Smear

Sharyl Attkisson, author of “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote,” says that a smear, an attack based on a grain of truth, has as its purpose the “annihilation of its target.”

The art of the smear is simple in its execution. Staff members or supporters of a candidate isolate some words spoken or written by their opponent, then broadcast this falsehood as truth to the world. Another version consists of selecting offensive nicknames for a candidate, then repeating them again and again. Even after the accusations are proven false, the smear sticks.

When we engage in gossip, or worse, when we create that gossip, we’re doing the same thing. We’re blackening someone’s character. Eventually, we may find we were wrong, but by then the damage is done. The person’s reputation is in shreds and may never be repaired.

The Ad Hominem Attack

Related to the smear, this technique actually makes the traditional list of rhetorical fallacies. Instead of arguing against another’s ideas, we assail the person. Once again, we’ve seen this tactic at play in the recent run-up to the election. It’s an effective ploy for two reasons. First, it’s far more likely to enrage its target by attacking that person’s personal life rather than his or her platform. Second, a story about adultery, drug abuse, or some other misdeed draws a larger audience than debating a candidate’s stance on Social Security or welfare.

Ad hominem attacks can ruin conversations and relationships. They’re also juvenile. Here’s a case in point. After losing an argument with her mother about going to Florida with friends over spring break, a teenager may shout: “You’re horrible. You’re a horrible mom. I hate you!”

Does she mean it? Likely not. But there’s an example of a classic ad hominem attack.

And here’s the point: Grownups don’t argue this way.

Takeaways

Right now, the art of oratory and eloquence in the United States appears at an all-time low. We long ago ceased teaching elocution and logic to young people, and the results, with some exceptions, are evident in our current crop of politicians and political candidates. Appeals to emotion have preempted appeals to reason, and confusion rather than clarity often follows our disjointed news conferences and debates.

Fortunately, we can take these negatives as examples of how not to conduct consequential discussions with family and friends. In these conversations, we can speak with respect to our listeners. We can think before we speak. We can listen and be present while the other is talking. Instead of trying to score points, we can look for truth and common ground.

Meanwhile, we can also hope that our leaders might take a hint, sharpen their oratory, and make some room for civility on the next election cycle.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.