Look At Me! How Kids and Politicians Get Attention

Family Friday

After Saturday's heartbreaking, gut-wrenching shootings of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and nineteen others, speculation abounds that the tone of recent political discourse generated just enough vitriol to push the clearly unbalanced suspect right off the rails.  In some immensely creepy foreshadowing, Giffords herself had expressed concern about the potential consequences of explosive imagery such as Sarah Palin's now-infamous crosshairs map.  

So why do politicians, talking heads and media personalities use such deliberately inflammatory language and metaphors and imagery?  (Hint: Look at me, look at me, look at me!)

Yes, you got it - inflammatory stuff gets attention.  And as parents, we all know a thing or two about attention-getting tactics.  

Children learn quickly enough that temper tantrums and physical violence ultimately will not produce the kind of attention they want.  Finding powerful words becomes all-important, and word-grenades such as lying, cheating, and stealing elicit strong visceral reactions from others.  Once kids figure this out, they may use word-grenades in bids for sympathy and attention (while getting someone else in trouble).  Here's a heartwarming holiday example from my very own brood:

"Samantha stole my Santa lollipop!" bellowed my nine-year-old. 

"I did not!" screeched his sister.

"Stealing is a very strong word to use, Justin," I said.  I explained that many fates could have befallen that lollipop – most likely, he set it down somewhere and forgot about it.  Or, perhaps someone mistakenly assumed ownership and scooped it up. 

Sure enough, the lollipop emerged the next morning from underneath a pile of school papers.  (After some prodding, Justin did apologize to his sister).

That very evening, six-year-old Samantha suddenly wailed that someone had stolen her math homework.  She had completed it when she came home from school, then couldn't find it after dinner.  And of course, it popped up later that night, exactly where she'd stuck it earlier.

Now I doubt that even Samantha truly believed that one of us would bother to steal her homework (maybe the lollipop though).  No, her goal was strictly drop everything and look at ME!

It's not that words like stealing and lying never apply, I pointed out to my kids, but you need to use them judiciously.  And if you choose to use them, make sure you can back them up.  Without such backup, you lose credibility, you lose friends, and you needlessly create animosity.  First, assume good intentions.  Second, realize that manipulating others to get attention will backfire. 

As a parent, I've spent a lot of time defusing word-grenades, but on the flip side, I have to be careful about my own verbal quirks.  As a fluent adult English-speaker, I tend to use a lot of idioms and figures of speech, employing language colorfully in service of a point.  But my concrete-minded kids often have no idea what I'm saying, so I end up explaining myself over and over again.  No, my knee is not literally killing me.  It's not really raining cats and dogs.  No, kids, that person didn't really cut off her nose to spite her face.  You're right, overly-literal husband, I really don't have a million things to do (maybe ten thousand). 

To me, what matters is target audience and intent.  While my husband (should) know exactly what I mean, I need to remember that my kids truly don't.  I'm not intentionally using language to mislead or manipulate anyone (well, not very often anyway).  But no matter my intentions, I can't just ignore my target audience.  If I do, I risk seriously confusing them. 

The adult world of politics really isn't that different.  Politics is manipulation, ostensibly in service of a greater goal (let's just assume good intent, shall we?)  As a politician, you must first get people's attention, next develop a catchy hook, then draw people in while maintaining their interest.  Whatever your opinion of Sarah Palin, you cannot deny that she's mastered this process; since 2008, she's reeled in a lot of people (metaphorically), as well as fish (literally).

Now let's consider target audience.  If you're a politician on the national scene, your audience is just about everyone.  Millions of individuals that you don't know, with greatly varying levels of intelligence, emotionality, stability...how scary is that?  Throw in a couple of word-grenades (or picture-grenades), and...I'm getting chills just thinking about it.

And by the way, I'm not suggesting that any one individual or political party holds a monopoly on political invective.  This week, the spotlight happened to shine on Sarah Palin and those crosshairs.  But all diffent kinds of people and groups misuse histrionic political rhetoric.  (For instance, is it really possible to "rape" an environment?)

On the microlevel, I can exert influence as a parent by modeling appropriate speech and not rewarding word-grenades.  While there's certainly a place in life for figures of speech and hyperbole, it's probably best to avoid these when discussing someone else's (alleged) shortcomings. 

Now on the macrolevel - if I knew a spiffy way to get politicians and talking heads to tone down the rhetoric, I'd make a lot more money than I do now.  (But I'd still have a million things to do).

Comments

[Lyn]

On the use of rhetoric, violent or otherwise, and what makes something violent rhetoric (as opposed to colorful imagery): http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/what-is-violent-rhetoric|

[K Ship]

Yet another attack on Sarah Palin. How about the DNC that published a map with bulls eye's on it in 2008. How about President Obama who told an audience in Philly to bring a gun to a knife fight. There is no evidence that this shooter knew much about Sarah Palin. He began planning this event in 2007 well before Sarah was on the National Stage. Have you read any of the websites that call for Sarah Palins assanitation ?

[Michael]

The connection between the attention seeking behaviors of politicians and children is spot on. There is also a parallel to advertising that was brought to light in one of the older ‘The Simpson’s – Tree House of Horrors’ episodes. The town of Springfield is overrun by giant advertisements and logos come to life. The solution to the problem – complete with Paul Anka’s Guarantee – is ‘just don’t look, just don’t look.’ And once all the good townsfolk take the advice the rampaging giants are rendered powerless. Politicians – of all stripes – will stop using ‘word grenades’ when we stop allowing them to work. Bravo for the post.

[JBod]

@"K Ship" Did you read the article above? Particularly the 3rd to last paragraph? Part of the issue at hand is that people (like you, clearly)skip over what doesn't fit their point. I thought Jenny went out of her way to be VERY neutral, only calling Palin out as a person who is being discussed on the national scene as guilty of the rhetoric, currently. Take a moment to read and comprehend before you post. It will save a lot of misplaced hard feelings.