That is, he was denying he said it - fighting back on Twitter while deleting his own trails - until such time as it became clear that there was, surprise surprise in this day of recorded everything, evidence to the contrary.
Does this sound familiar? Well, if you live in Toronto, you hear regular variations on this "I didn't say what you're saying I said, but I apologize if you heard it the wrong way" theme all the time from our Mayor. But then again, Rob Ford's a special case.
No, I'm looking back to Vic Toews who point-blank told Don Martin that he never said "you're with us or with the child pornographers" - until he couldn't get away with his back-peddling any more.
Of course we also have the ongoing Senate Scandals with our Prime Minister finding his current statements increasingly in contradictory conflict with what he's said in the past. He's getting snippier with his message points, getting mad at the people who dare to question him.
Why? Why do these tough-talking leaders keep painting themselves into corners they can't tough-talk or spin their way out of? Do they even realize how ridiculous and cynical they come across? Yes, you can always turn to your base for defense, but your base cares less about you and more about attacking opponents - they could really care less what you do, so long as they see you as a validating champion.
It's a Plato's Desktop thing - tough, aggressive, message-and-attack oriented political people are counting one what worked before to work again. They're assuming that the "admit to being human but always learning" approach Justin Trudeau is taking will fall flat, because people will see his occasional bit of bafflegab as creating a pattern of poor choices.
But we're also seeing a pattern of poor choices coming out of the message-people; when they get called on it and rhyme off talking points, they sound like they're completely out of touch with reality. Which is more disconcerting?
Here's the modern reality - everything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. What's more, your conflicting statements will be parodied. If you don't take open and transparent communication seriously, people aren't going to take you seriously.
You can opt to say nothing or stick to soundbites, but then you just look silly and unable to adapt. You can say whatever pops into your head and then double-down when called on it - that's what Rob Ford is doing.
Or, you can actually think before you speak and be aware of what comes out of your mouth. You can think about what other people say to you and how it makes you feel/want to respond. You can even ask what was meant by something someone else said to establish clarity.
It's tiring and tough, I know, to be consciously in control all the time. Consideration is not inauthentic, though - it's simply good planning.
'Cause there's this other thing about dancing like everyone is watching - when you're doing something right, it gets recognized, too. And when you're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, compliment others when they do well and do your best to be pro-social all the time, people will respond in kind.
Do unto others as you'd have them to do, etc.
You never know when disease or accidents may take you, or when disaster may strike. You never know when it is that you'll need your neighbour's help. But should you expect it to be there in lean times if you weren't willing to make an effort in times of plenty?
Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead - which, of course, is what committing sociology is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment