I like the seeming contradiction of “Solutions not Slogans”, because indeed slogans tend to be empty, often working against solutions. But they don’t have to be. Below are several that I dare say faithfully capture the gist of how I’d be different (and better) as your representative in Congress. If you like that sort of thing, read on…
I will never use slogans like “Fighting for Better Healthcare!” because they make no sense to me. Who, exactly, is fighting for worse healthcare? The “fight” is about how to provide better healthcare. The implication with overly simple slogans is that “my side” already has that answer, before the debate has gone anywhere. This sort of thing just hinders effective discussion instead of helping get to that workable solution that could, in fact, provide the better healthcare everyone wants.
A lot of these catchy slogans express my main theme, which is to foster greater understanding across the political divides. It isn’t about reaching broad consensus on what would be “best”, but about understanding why compromise is so often necessary. A primary metaphor is “bridges”, which I see as allowing people to visit the other side to see how they do things there. It’s not about getting everyone to one common place, as nice as that might be, because I don’t think that’s ever been realistic. Maybe someday, but unlikely in my lifetime. In the meantime we can focus on an old and very fine slogan:
E pluribus unum — Out of many, one
Click on each for more commentary:
Solutions not Slogans
This is the self-referential anti-slogan slogan. Maybe it’s a bit too cute, but I think it’s funny, and to the point. Point being, typical slogans drive a stake in the ground and don’t really go anywhere. Solutions usually require movement through a complex landscape.
Process not Platitudes
Here’s another along the same lines, just because I like to rip on platitudes. Too much political talk is little more than feel-good platitudes that lead nowhere. I’m also process oriented, because I’ve learned that, in the end, Process is how anything interesting gets done. There’s a fine balance between too much and too little process. Congress, as it happens, has a great deal of well-defined process, and much of it is (don’t be shocked) effective. Sadly, much is geared more towards maintaining partisan control, and that is decidedly not effective for solving the country’s problems.
Balance not Backlash
This directly addresses the fundamental flaw with our two-party system as it stands: As control swings from party to party by narrower and narrower margins, the Majority Party invariably acts as if it has a “mandate” from some overwhelming majority of Americans — and almost always goes too far. This invites a backlash from the electorate, then from the Other Party when they (re)take control. Here’s an interesting graphic showing the swings, and how the majority margins have thinned in recent decades. If we don’t bring some calmer voices to congress, the swings are likely to get wilder and wilder until things fly apart.
Progress not Pendulum
Another take on the back-and-forth dynamic between the two major parties. There has been some progress over the decades, but a lot of pendulum, doing and undoing, back and forth, back and forth.
Bridges not Bickering
Here’s that bridge theme, versus bickering, which is like hurling insults across an open divide.
Build not Blame
Another variation on bridging divides, with a focus on working together to get good things done instead of finger pointing about the bad things.
Common ground not Culture wars
Another variation on finding ways to come together despite (many) differences.
Compromise not Combat
Another with focus on the general need for compromise in a big diverse country.
Conversations not Confrontations
Another with the idea that a conversation involves listening and speaking, with a goal of improving mutual understanding rather than “winning”.
Debate not Demonize
This calls out demonization as another dead end, speaking indirectly to the danger of assuming and attacking someone’s motives. I’ll have a lot to say about that later, but in short: Attacking motives is a dangerous strategy, even if you happen to be right and your opponent’s motives are as dark as you suppose; since motive is rarely provable, you risk making them stronger.
Dialogue not Diatribes
Another about communication, with fun word symmetry.
Discussion not Division
And another…
Engage not Enrage
Just one letter different, how fun is that? Reads like a bumper sticker.
Listening not Lecturing
A simple reminder of the importance of listening for real conversation.
Real talk not Rehearsed lines
Effective communication involves risk, because when honestly exploring ideas you might phrase something poorly and invite shallow attacks. So much of politics is about avoiding risk of this sort, with focus-tested phrasing and talking points.
Results not Rhetoric
Contrasting how it takes real understanding and exploration to achieve lasting results, versus rhetorical gimmicks designed primarily to get and stay in office.
Substance not Soundbites
I read an Economist article that said many if not most members of Congress attend committee hearings with a goal of uttering some viral-worthy soundbite. From what I’ve seen, this rings depressingly true. The job of a committee is nominally to explore a topic, deepen and refine mutual understanding, to move towards solutions. That requires substantive dialog with all involved parties. I have seen that as well, but sadly diluted by vacuous posturing. In the end it’s just inefficient, sometimes to the point of no significant progress at all.
Unity not Ugliness
A simple over-arching idea. There is certainly too much ugliness in politics, and no point in pointing fingers of blame. It’s an individual choice to refrain. “Who started it” is a contest no one wins.