Propaganda and negotiation

I am now teaching at a university. One of the classes I teach is communication ethics. It's a broad subject, and during my lectures I make use of the knowledge I have about a lot of little things. Journalism, politics, negotiations, religious philosophy . . .

The other day, we were discussing situational ethics as they relate to communication. We were discussing the political communication in the US that has developed recently. That is to say - the sharp partisan rhetoric that has dominated discussion. I referred back to a class that I had on negotiations years ago. That for negotiations to succeed, both parties must view the other as a partner. We must make it our primary objective that the bargaining partner also be satisfied with the negotiations. If we do not, we will be trapped in zero-sum adversarial negotiations.

One aspect of this approach is that rhetoric is important. Feelings are important. If I am insulting you, I am not creating an environment conducive to negotiation.

So, this is what we have in the United States. Hateful rhetoric that makes negotiation nearly impossible. Why is this being used? Because the people propagating it have no real interest in negotiation. How can we respond to such rhetoric?

Personally, I hope to God that the better aspect of people will eventually reject hatred and those who sow hatred will fail in their objectives. But I am really not sure if this will happen before many people are hurt.

Are Americans really that satisfied with health care?

Is this true?

"Everyone likes the idea of reform, but most Americans remain quite satisfied with the quality and accessibility of their own health care, and very worried about policies that would impair that quality or access."

It's a quote from today's column by William Kristol in the Washington Post. He urges Republicans to start focusing on the vulnerabilities of the Obama Administration. It's worth reading, even if you voted for Obama, just to see what sort of advice the Republicans are getting.

But I was curious - is his statement really true - that most people are "quite satisfied with the quality and accessibility of their own health care?" He doesn't cite a particular poll - so I'm wondering which one he's thinking about. There is this CNN poll, that finds 8/10 Americans satisfied with their health care. Three quarters of the sample also judge the cost of health care in this country to be too expensive.

This 2003 ABC poll finds that "most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000." Did health care really improve that much since 2003? To be honest, I didn't think that health care reform was much of a priority for the Bush Administration. Perhaps I was distracted by the screams of prisoners being tortured.

In a Harris Interactive/Health Day poll earlier this year, half of the 2,491 adults surveyed said they either "strongly" or "somewhat" supported the president's plan to overhaul health care. Twenty-nine percent said they were still not sure about the plan, and 20 percent expressed opposition to the Obama proposals. And in June 2005 the Lake Snell Perry Mermin poll found that 27 percent picked rising health care costs as their top economic concern. The other concerns were wages not keeping up with costs (18 percent), a secure retirement (14 percent), higher taxes (12 percent ), and rising gas prices (9 percent).

I know that poll results have much to do with how questions are worded. At a gut level, I question Kristol's assumption that most Americans are "quite satisfied" with their health care. I wonder about this statement especially now that so many have lost employer-provided health care benefits during this recession.

Which polls is Kristol reading?

The great American media!

I am watching the news on TV in the USA. Andrea Mitchell Reports - an afternoon program on MSNBC. How can she seriously and snidely be commenting on the issues of the economy, when she is married to Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve? Not surprisingly, she has so far spoken to five Republicans and one Democrat. Why don't we just call these mainstream media "Republican?" There is no attempt at balance - and no attempt to be honest about her conflict of interest.

Now - she is talking to Orin Hatch, Republican senator from Utah? He says most economists are skeptical of the stimulus package. Not one of his partisan statements is questioned or challenged. She just offers free airtime to Republican propaganda. Outrageous!