Elected representatives in Congress do not have “conversations”. But they talk in those terms! A quarrel is not a debate. Gossip is not a discussion. An opinion is not evidence. A forum is not a bull session. A talk is not an address. A perpetrator is not a gentleman. A reporter is not a pundit. Argumentation is not quarreling. Conversation is not public speaking. Conversation is not discussion. Converstaion is not argumentation. Conversation is not debating. Conversation is not deliberation.Our government officials represent the will of the people and must be professional communicators. Business managers represent their organizations and must be professional communicators. Professionals subscribe to an organizational set of goals, procedures, and standards, and are masters of the criteria by which professional behavior is to be judged for competence in their field.
In the nomenclature of professional communicators are these words.
Converstions take place over cocktails in a social setting. Conversations are undisciplined, flighty, flying off at any point to a different point of interest. That’s not the place for deliberation!
Discussion is not conversation. Discussion is the heart of deliberation. Discussion is disciplined by a problem-solving process that, when mastered by a group of professionals, flies to a target straight as an arrow. Any conversational descent adds to the inefficiency. However, there are emotional components to a discussion that may sound “conversational” but which are not, which are really goal oriented. Masters (leader) of discussion will know any difference between a conversational and a problem-solving incident, and in any discussion there are many different sorts of leaders (masters).
Debate goes beyond discussion, but grows out of discussion. Debate is a part of deliberation. Discussion is not broken down by strong differences among proposed problem-solutions, but progresses to the need for debate, by which the log jam is cleared up. Debate involves argumentation, or, the phrasing of propositions and the handling of evidence demonstrating the possibility or impossibility of the proposed policy. The whole point is to resolve some problem and to get the group to move on to other problems.
One cloak all deliberators put on is that of the diplomat. “My esteemed colleague… “the honorable representative from …” “the gentlewoman of …” “my worthy opponent…” Such language keeps the focus on a civil tongue and mood and discourse. Differences are intellectual, among civilized people, not of the bloody mob. Conviction is shown in other manners of delivery.
I watched the dilatory Sen. Dole (the woman) talk over and under all her panel mates without regard to the moderator, the clock, the subject— she violated some principles of deliberative mindedness and alienated a substantial number of people. She made one outrageous statement that set alight a firestorm, she knew what she had done, and she began a cover-up, unstoppable tirade that became drowned out by the others. Decorum was lost, everyone was shouting. That from a senator!
The deliberative mind shows some experience with those basic elements of deliberation. Watch for the “deviates”. Honor (vote for) the adherants.
