Politics Tuesday: Politicians Might Listen To Us...If We Listen To Them

Posted by Dr. David Wilmot, dave@oceanchampions.org

Last week I made the case that if you care about good public policy, you should care about politics. I suspect my strong bias that the key to ultimate success in the public policy arena is political power/leverage with elected officials came through loud and clear. Now taking a step back, where does communication fit in? In our Turning the Tide report, public communication and grassroots support are the foundation for building political strength, while lobbying and direct involvement in the electoral process gives this foundation a voice that makes politicians willing to listen.

The ability to communicate effectively is fundamentally important. This is not a revelation to any of you and I feel almost silly writing about communicating on Randy Olson's blog...yet here I go. I believe I have paid enough attention to Randy and my communication consultants over the years to understand that language, presentation, relevance, and messenger are all critically important. I'm not offended as a scientist (former) or conservationist (current) when it's proposed that we "sell" our issue or information to a particular audience. I agree with Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney that "discussing issues in new ways and with new messengers can be accomplished without distorting the underlying science." Matt and Chris really hit the mark with the statement "Making complicated issues personally meaningful will activate public support much more effectively than blinding people with science."

"Personally meaningful." I like this. If an individual or group does their homework and figures out what I actually care about or believe in, I welcome a conversation and with a little work maybe even a relationship. I can't be that different from everyone else. When working with people who can influence/control what we care most about, they deserve this level of attention. In my case, professional lobbying is more about the relationship than it is about the issue. The key is for me to take the time and expend the energy to understand members of Congress, for example. I strive to make the relationship - not just the issue - meaningful to them. I have found that once the relationship is established with a member of Congress a level of trust can be developed and the conversation naturally moves to a deeper level.

Some advocates (science, ocean conservation, pick your issue) underestimate the value of relationships (with elected officials or the public). This shortcoming is more than simply blinding them with science or speaking down to them. It shows an unwillingness to spend the time to understand what is important (or not important) to the very person who can give the advocate what they want and need. Whether it is naiveté or narcissism, it is rarely a successful strategy.

The next time we go to the trouble of re-framing an issue or repackaging important information in the hope of being heard, shouldn't we ask ourselves what we know about our audience? Do we understand their values? Their needs? Are we offering them anything they actually need or want? Do we ever make them smile or laugh? I know Randy would tell us to make them smile at the very least.