MICHAEL B. ABRAMSON

Part III:  Jon Stewart, Charles Krauthammer,

and America’s Game of Political Telephone

 

Author’s Note:  This blog post is the third in a series of three posts on the topic.

 

Recap of the First Two Parts of This Blog Post 

            The first part of this post discussed how informed individuals (such as Jon Stewart and Charles Krauthammer) can have different definitions of the same term, but, at the same time, find that their beliefs are similar after resolving the different definitions of the term in question.  The second part addressed the reasons for these varying definitions and ways to accurately convey one’s beliefs and prevent the miscommunication.

 

Introduction

            This third and final part of the post analyzes how miscommunication between Conservatives and Liberals can impact a policy discussion.  First, in Part A, the post shares a comment from a Conservative.  As is often the case in politics and policy discussions, the Conservative does not state the reasoning behind the Comment or plan to address the issue presented in it.  Rather, the Conservative assumes that everyone knows them.  Part B lists the Conservative’s likely (and unstated) reasoning behind the comment and plan.  Part C details what the Liberal probably assumes the Conservative’s reasoning and plan to be.  Part D hypothesizes how the Liberal would respond to the Conservative’s actual plan if it were presented.  Part E presents a path to negotiate the differences between the Conservative and Liberal.  Last, Part F presents an alternative way to present the Conservative’s original comment.  This alternative states the Conservative’s previously unstated reasoning and plan, and it also addresses any assumptions which the Liberal may have.  Presenting the Comment in this way could have likely prevented the miscommunication between the two sides.

 

A. Comment from a Conservative

            The rise in the number of Americans on food stamps is unacceptable.  America must reduce the number of Americans on food stamps.

 

B. The Conservative’s Likely (and Unstated) Reasoning behind the Comment and Plan to Address the Issue

NOTE:  The Conservative does not state the reasoning and plan in the original Comment.

 

The Conservative’s Reasoning

1. The food stamp program is an important safety net for those who are unable to buy their own food.  The U.S. should keep the program but try to keep the number of enrollees low.

 

2. America should be a strong enough nation for people to afford to buy their own food.

 

3. The declining American economy and rising U.S. unemployment rate has led to an increasing number of individuals who are unable to buy their own food. 

 

4. Conservatives want to decrease the number of Americans using food stamps for three reasons: 

      (a) While the safety net of food stamps is necessary, Americans should not be forced to provide for those who can provide for themselves.

      (b) Individuals will have a higher quality of life if they are self-sufficient and not dependent on the government. 

      (c) If Americans get used to food stamps and not working, Americans may lose the impetus to work and instead become dependent on the government.

 

The Conservative’s Plan

1. Maintain the food stamp program because it is an important safety net.

 

2. Improve the economy so that individuals have jobs and can afford to buy food.  As a result, food stamp usage will decline.  It is preferable to have fewer people on food stamps.

 

3. Institute limits on food stamp usage (such as limiting the amount of time one can be on food stamps, requiring enrollees to apply for jobs, mandating that enrollees pass drug tests, etc.) so that individuals do not become dependent on food stamps.

 

4. Be lenient on limiting food stamp usage until (a) the economy improves and (b) the plan to ameliorate food stamp usage is implemented and communicated.

 

C. The Liberal’s Assumptions of the Conservative’s Reasoning and Plan

NOTE:  The Liberal is left to assume the Conservative’s reasoning and plan because the Conservative does not share them in the original Comment. 

 

The Liberal’s Assumption of the Conservative’s Reasoning

1. The federal government should not provide food assistance to those who cannot afford food. 

 

2.The government should cancel the food stamp program.

 

3. The federal government should let people starve.  This lack of food will serve as an impetus to work.

 

4. The Conservative’s comment may be a veiled racist statement.

 

The Liberal’s Assumption of the Conservative’s Plan

1. Eliminate the food stamp program or tighten the restrictions on food stamps so that the number of enrollees drops.

 

2. Let people starve. 

 

3. If people starve, others will become motivated to find jobs so that they can afford food.

 

D. The Liberal’s Likely Response to the Conservative’s Actual Plan