I also know some people on the right - talking to them they use simpler language and they sound as if they know were they are going to and are able to convey that goal. I do not agree with most of their goals, but I can imagine that it is more convincing for people like my friend who do not like to analyse every word to find out what has been said. Again over-generalisation.
So I see two problems:
And I find lately the left has mostly become the party who is against something, the no-sayers. Why did they not bring up an alternative solution for the IV. The IV does have problems, it is to rigid and I think there could be more flexible solutions. But I have heard nothing really constructive from the left either on how to solve and improve the IV insurance.
That comment made me recall the Betriebsrat work I did lo these many (many) moons ago. Simply explaining to colleagues what a Betriebsrat is supposed to do - ensure that all rules benefiting employees are actually applied and that all personnel decisions are exercised in a fair and equitable manner - took a lot of effort: between the apathetic and the I'm-all-right-Jacks, that was a tough row to hoe. Explaining how the process actually worked in real life - why things had to happen one way and not another was even more difficult to get across.
Once you get beyond first principles, everything that we want to communicate is based on the real world and real needs, and is thus complex and requires more effort on the part of the listener.
I don't want to say that "lousy communication" is not a problem - very often it is.
But we also need to realize that what we are trying to communicate is inherently more difficult to get across (and less emotionally satisfying) than the righteous feel-good tirades of the right. "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
My comment came out of my knowledge of NLP, which says, it is always the sender who is responsible if the listeners understands the message. This means the sender has to go into the world of the listener and adjust his language to the world of the listener. This means we need to learn about the world of the listener - same as walking in someone elses shoes. Then adjust the language to the adressee's language. I not only mean words, but also the pictures and feeling need to be adjusted.
This is not necessarily easy and at times downright challenging if the way of thinking and experiencing of the other person is very different ones own world.
Wish I had time to write more, but have to get going again.
But the way you frame it here, it sounds like listening is a passive activity. Don't the listeners need to participate as well ("active listening")?
You're right that we who enjoy talking about stuff like this need to adapt our communication modes to the sensibilities of those who don't. But we are still at a disadvantage that our message is inherently less interesting for the listeners than theater, Big Brother or whatever else it is that floats their boat. "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
In an ideal world yes! I think most party members would probably be more active listeners, but I have my doubt even about that. The thing is we want something from the people - we want them to vote for the Left! So we have to be interesting enough for them to be able to make the shift from passiv to active listening. So the responsibility is with those who want something.
I think often listening to the left there is a lot of metatalk - this is not a way to involve most people. Most people have a favorite topic that gets them interested and that is themselves. When they can see and feel and how voting for the Left will improve their lives the will listen and vote. And I am not talking about monetary promises only, but also quality of life in general.
