The Issue of "Responsible Speech" in Light of Our Attitude Toward Leadership
It's almost 1:00 AM, and I've been watching a Charlie Rose interview with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and former Secretary of State, Jim Baker. As I watch and listen, something is "clicking" inside of me in terms of the relationship between "Responsible Speech" (or Irresponsible Speech) and a person's attitude toward a person in leadership who is in power at any given time.
First of all, let me give a gentle disclaimer that I am a person who likes to think of people's motives as pure, as opposed to crooked and conniving. I'm not naive enough, though, to believe that people's motives are absolutely pure. I realize that, even when any one of us believes we have all the best conscious motives, impure and self-serving motives may be present in our decision making.
In general, I come from that slant of perspective, that some may interpret as naive, and trying to "butter up" to those in leadership and decision-making positions. However, I have to admit that I also have had my share of distrust of those in leadership positions that has caused me to make the mistakes I'm about to talk about--mistakes in our view of those people that, I believe, leads us to what I would call "Irresponsible Speech."
This is what occurred to me, as I watched Hillary Clinton's responses to Charlie Rose's questions:
- I know that many think that Secretary of State Clinton is "out for herself," and, basically, a liar who is always positioning herself for some political or personal advantage of some sort or another. That has been the basic stance, if I'm correct, of most of the conservative pundits, like many from Fox News, Rush Limaugh, Glen Beck, etc, as well as many conservative Christians who generally back the Republican Party. I believe that one of the errors in judgement that many of us make when we are criticizing someone in a powerful leadership position is that we ascribe motives to them that aren't necessarily there. We think we know things about that person's motives and decision-making processes that we really don't. We are, in effect, playing "God," when we are making our grandiose assertions of what that person is "really out for," and why "that person is wrong!" (Please don't misunderstand me to believe that only conservatives do that. We are all guilty of it, no matter which party or ideals we back!)
- The second mistake in judgement that we tend to make when criticizing people in leadership positions is that we think we know more about what is involved in that particular job than we really do. Whenever I see these interviews of Hillary Clinton and others in her post, it is very clear to me that the dimensions and level of responsibility involved in the job of Secretary of State go far beyond the dimensions of most of our personal lives, and even most of our jobs. While I assert that view, I don't mean to say that, because someone is in a leadership position, we are to blindly support them and sheepishly agree with everything they say or do. However, as I watch Charlie Rose interview these States People, and as I observe their responses, I'm keenly aware that every decision that someone in that powerful a station makes has to be made in a very detailed, thoughtful, weighted, and responsible manner. In other words, when Hillary Clinton is negotiating with the Chinese or the Iranians, or whoever, she cannot be as flighty as some of us may like to think she is; if so, our world would be put in a very dangerous, unstable and insecure state. One wrong decision from the level from which she administers could end up in thousands of lives being lost, instability in more countries than one; not to mention the ire of many factions, in this country and others, that are moved by a blind religious fanaticism and emotionalism that could only result in a pretty chaotic and dangerous society.
*************************************************************
I have to acknowledge that my position may be influenced by my experience in the field of Special Education. There is a simplistic "might makes right" philosophy that many school administrations and teachers subscribe to, that actually may cause someone who is emotionally unstable to escalate, and, therefore, cause further danger to themselves and others. When someone is trying to help a kid de-escalate their emotions, they are often accused of "coddling" the child, not making the adult authority clear enough, and neglecting to show that student the clear and immediate consequences of their actions. I would like to ask us all, who responds well to someone merely enforcing power over us when we are in an escalated emotional state? Those of us with spouses and partners can readily testify that there are certain times when our spouse or partner ought "not to say anything" when we are in a certain intense emotional state. "Not now!" is the retort we give to our spouse or child when they are making a demand of us that we know is going to push us over the limit. We have to calm down and get our wits back about us before we can make any rational decisions. The fact that we have to calm down doesn't excuse us, or our kids or students, of our responsibility to do what is right. However, there are often more dimensions to the picture than that, one of them being our being able to regulate our emotions when we are upset or angry.
Do children have to submit to authority? Of course! Do children have to learn how to take responsibility for their actions and learn from consequences? Of course! However, children (and adults) have to learn how to regulate their emotions even when they are very intense and powerful. Just "submitting to authority," as necessary as it is, does not, necessarily, teach a child how to regulate powerful emotions. It may be an important component in her/his learning that emotional regulation is absolutely necessary, but it is only one component. There are other aspects that come into play when we are learning to regulate ourselves.
Likewise, there are elements in our society and others' that are moved by highly charged emotions, and just saying to them "Stop it!" with our bombs or "authority" or military force, may, as right as it seems, result in unwanted escalation and consequences more dangerous than we had anticipated.
*************************************************************
My point is, in relation to "responsible speech" about those in leadership positions, that, to put it bluntly, we really may not know what we are talking about when we are assessing and criticizing someone who has a job that is much more complicated and demanding than we have any idea of!
3. The third mistake in perception of leadership that I see we make--that then makes us vulnerable to "irresponsible speech"--is related to the second (that we think we know more than we really do about the responsibilities of the person we are criticizing). It is that we are over-simplifying the reality that a person in leadership may be facing.
I see this not only in the rash criticisms of leaders that I see coming from our political mud-fights, but also in many of the criticisms we may have of a leader close to us--a boss, a religious leader, or even someone who is heading up a project in which we are one of the supporting participants.
Does it mean that we can't question, at least in our minds, what the particular leader is doing? Of course we can question! Questioning is not only human: It's a great learning tool. There are times, though, when it is better to "go with the program," whether we think we are right or wrong, because, even if we are "right," our disruption of the leadership would cause more destruction than the "mistake" we are trying to criticize.
But, if we take this principal of "responsible" vs "irresponsible" speech to the level of our personal lives, it might be instructive to ask ourselves if we are making the mistakes that I'm talking about, in our estimation of whether that person is "right" or "wrong," and in our choices to assert our opinion publicly, in the name of "saving the cause."
- Are we ascribing motives to that person that aren't there? I see this in the religious community a lot (and have been guilty of it myself). I see this also in the workplace. We really think we know what the motives are behind such and such a person's decisions. That really is a "high and mighty," pride-filled position to take, no matter how much we think we are "standing up for the right thing!"
- Are we taking the view that we really know the breadth and depth of what goes into the decision making of the person we are criticizing? Do we think we know more about their job than we do? Even if we are in a subordinate position to someone who is doing a job we ourselves have done, is it possible that we may not know some of the dimensions and level of responsibility that person is facing?
- Lastly, in line with the second mistake, above, are we oversimplifying the what we think is the reality and context that leader is facing?
Once we make those mistakes in perception, it is very easy, then, to start speaking "authoritatively" about why we think such and such a leader is wrong, "crazy," "out of their minds," etc, etc, etc. That, in my view is "Irresponsible Speech," and that is the time we ought to "shut our mouths," even if we think we are "on the right side of history" in our assertions!!!!
