Is Meaningful Dialogue Possible?
By Ken Andersen

Incredible sums are being spent on political advertisements with expenditures rising exponentially in part due to Supreme Court's rulings. Voters are being "turned off" by the sheer number and constant repetition of the ads, particularly negative ads. Most ads offer little evidence to support claims about opposition candidates, claims that upon careful scrutiny are at best partially correct and omit relevant contexts.. Even positive claims to cut waste, increase jobs, eliminate "Obamacare," provide no substance as to what or how. There is minimal or no useful information on which to base a decision as to the best candidate.

The incredible partisanship of the U.S. Congress and the stress on activating the "party's base" reduce any opportunity for meaningful dialogue on the significant choices confronting the nation. Winning the election becomes the goal: "I can't make a judgment about global warming, I am not a scientist." But vote for me so I can make decisions on what to do about it.

Local elections still seem to offer the opportunities for useful dialogue and debate among both candidates and among voters. But this does not characterize in contested state and national elections. The excesses of rabid partisanship and lavish spending increasingly affect judicial races and ballot initiatives as well.

I garner my most useful information in dialogue with people holding opposing viewpoints who disagree without being disagreeable. We need those who offer rationales for their views and are willing to listen and challenge the reasons and evidence supporting my opposing views. These valuable conversations often approximate the ideals set forth in the National Communication Association's "Credo for Ethical Communication" adopted as a policy document by the NCA on November 6, 1999. It, in turn, was influenced by an earlier NCA policy document, "Credo for Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society." The closer our shared communication approximates these principles, the more likely our communication will serve us and others well. The further the deviation from them, the greater the potential for negative results over time even if not realized in the short term.

It is useful to remember that the things that are central in our lives-self-respect, family, friends, a meaningful career-are inextricably linked to positive adherence to ethical guidelines in our communication. As people become alienated by the current political climate, we should recognize the long-term harm of many electioneering practices. As a nation and individually, let us move toward the fusion of ethics, politics, and rhetoric (communication) so powerfully described by Aristotle as essential to good government and good lives.

Incredible sums are being spent on political advertisements with expenditures rising exponentially in part due to Supreme Court's rulings. Voters are being "turned off" by the sheer number and constant repetition of the ads, particularly negative ads. Most ads offer little evidence to support claims about opposition candidates, claims that upon careful scrutiny are at best partially correct and omit relevant contexts.. Even positive claims to cut waste, increase jobs, eliminate "Obamacare," provide no substance as to what or how. There is minimal or no useful information on which to base a decision as to the best candidate.

The incredible partisanship of the U.S. Congress and the stress on activating the "party's base" reduce any opportunity for meaningful dialogue on the significant choices confronting the nation. Winning the election becomes the goal: "I can't make a judgment about global warming, I am not a scientist." But vote for me so I can make decisions on what to do about it.

Local elections still seem to offer the opportunities for useful dialogue and debate among both candidates and among voters. But this does not characterize in contested state and national elections. The excesses of rabid partisanship and lavish spending increasingly affect judicial races and ballot initiatives as well.

I garner my most useful information in dialogue with people holding opposing viewpoints who disagree without being disagreeable. We need those who offer rationales for their views and are willing to listen and challenge the reasons and evidence supporting my opposing views. These valuable conversations often approximate the ideals set forth in the National Communication Association's "Credo for Ethical Communication" adopted as a policy document by the NCA on November 6, 1999. It, in turn, was influenced by an earlier NCA policy document, "Credo for Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society." The closer our shared communication approximates these principles, the more likely our communication will serve us and others well. The further the deviation from them, the greater the potential for negative results over time even if not realized in the short term.

It is useful to remember that the things that are central in our lives-self-respect, family, friends, a meaningful career-are inextricably linked to positive adherence to ethical guidelines in our communication. As people become alienated by the current political climate, we should recognize the long-term harm of many electioneering practices. As a nation and individually, let us move toward the fusion of ethics, politics, and rhetoric (communication) so powerfully described by Aristotle as essential to good government and good lives.