If you want to persuade, you need to be credible.
Watching John Boehner throw down the stimulus bill in front of what was undoubtedly a mostly empty House of Representatives makes me wonder what was the point? What was the strategy?
If he was trying to get on TV he succeeded. So I guess he has that going for him.
If he was trying to rally the people who already agreed with him to agree with him more, he probably succeeded as well.
But if he was trying to convince even one person who is on the fence, did it work?
Think about how many times a day you see someone or some group making a full-throated red-faced attack against a politician, corporation or other organization. The critics show righteous indignation. They hold up “irrefutable evidence” of their position. They argue that their target is guilty of crimes against humanity.
In the old days, these attacks often worked. They were much more rare back then. They were more likely to be serious claims about serious issues. Today, these attacks tend to be no more effective than a press release.
Actually, they are even less effective.
Boehner’s approach was silly. Turn off the sound and watch. This is not a serious man making a serious point. This is gimmickry at its best.
This stuff works for the base. I am sure the far right loved Boehner’s display. But he will not convince anyone to rethink their position with this kind of approach.
In every message project we do, we see the same thing.
When Americans hear yelling, they tune out. He who screams loudest does not win the war of words. Today, the winner is the one who gets people to listen.
If I want to convince you to change your opinion about something, the first thing I need to do is get you to listen. Most Americans won’t even consider an alternate viewpoint today. So if I want you to change your mind, I have to start with something you agree with. Only after I get you to nod your head in agreement about something will I be able to talk to you about what I really care about.
If I were in Boehner’s shoes, I would have held up the bill as well. But instead of throwing it down, I would have asked – in civil tone – three questions:
- Do you think that your Member of Congress should read a bill as important as an $800 million stimulus before they decide how to vote on it?
- Do you think that a Member of Congress deserves 48 hours to read a 1,000 page law?
- Do you think that the country will survive an additional 48 hours until our lawmakers can make an educated decision about the law?
Then I would have said: “Whether you are Democrat or Republican, these questions should be important to you. This issue should be important to you. And if you answered yes to all three questions, then you should write or call your congressman. Tell them this bill is too important to get wrong. Tell them you want more transparency in government, not less. Tell them that you will hold them accountable.”
My approach wouldn’t have been as dramatic, but I am pretty sure more people would have paid attention to the message, not just the theatrics.
