Here’s my “Mood of It All” segment about Tuesday’s Council meeting. I’ll offer observations on the meeting’s atmosphere, etc.
Don’t Get Angry. This was one of my underlying themes from an earlier post, “Tips for Meetings.” Cool often works better than hot, and this is especially true for those watching on cable. For those in the room, an angry person may seem off-putting; on television, that’s truer still. McLuhan was right – television is a cool medium. Print is a medium of wide emotions, from the aggressive and assertive to the soft and persuasive. Radio accepts a narrower range and television narrower still. (Reagan, in the years between 1976 and 1980, in periodic radio commentary, was one of the few people who could deliver a severe critique in a polite way over the airwaves. He might call someone a liar, and use the word itself, but in so matter-of-fact a way that it wasn’t jarring. It takes a certain grace to speak that way. Even when he grew angry during a televised primary debate in 1980, he still managed a level of control most angry people cannot equal.)
On Marilyn Kienbaum. I am sure that I don’t agree with Ms. Kienbaum on everything, but is there any doubt that her role in this community should be a source of respect and admiration? She has the well-earned support of many, and seeming to quibble with her is graceless and ineffective. She’s hard-working, and states her views plainly. Unmistakable, too, is that she’s sincere, sympathetic, and endearing. Anyone asking her exasperated questions, or repeating the same point more than once, is guaranteed to harm himself, not her. For goodness’ sake, how could one watch her and not be charmed? I have criticized some in town strenuously (and I think deservedly), but only a foolish person would direct frustrated complaints during a meeting toward Ms. Kienbaum. One looks at her and thinks, “There’s a sweet, kind woman.” (I would feel precisely the same regardless of any disapproving opinion that she might have of what I write.) She looks as though she might have come from central casting, and she’s an excellent public spokesperson for the town. She conveys naturally the impression of a friendly, dedicated, well-meaning person. Squabbling with her publicly – rather than disagreeing with her on dispassionate principle — is a silly idea.
On Procedures. When others interpret a procedure one way, and you interpret it another way, a choice presents itself. You could say nothing, if the matter is small, for the sake of harmony. There’s no loss in cooperating with others on minor matters, where the point isn’t vital; on the contrary, there’s gain to be had in that cooperative approach.
Suppose, however, that you think it’s a vital matter. If that’s your position, you’ll have to explain yourself carefully, thoughtfully, and without condescension. After all, no one else agrees with you. It will do you only harm to sigh, repeat the same statements over again, or convey the impression that you think everyone else is a dope. They’re not dopes; they’re probably at least as smart as you are. (I have clear disagreements with several people’s positions, but it’s not because I think that they’re stupid; it’s because I think that they’re wrong, often far wrong.) A person who displays a belief that he’s smarter than others almost never is, in the ways that count in life, anyway.
State your reasoning simply, and by analogy, not merely by a reference to the rules. Others know the rules, too; they’re just willing to make exceptions. If you want them to adopt your position, you’ll have to persuade them with something more than “we need to follow the rules.” Why do you need to do so, in this case? Just give a few, brief arguments in favor of your view: One, two, three…a sentence for each point will suffice. If others are receptive, then you can elaborate. If not, you’ll not likely turn them around (and certainly not by displays of exasperation). Don’t waste time.
On “Okay.” If you’re really exasperated, you may have occasion to a state a contrary position. Do so calmly, without evident annoyance: “That’s not really what the document says.” Never, ever, append the word “okay” to the sentence, especially as a question: “That’s not really what the document says, okay?”
Why not? Because people translate “That’s not really what the document says, okay?” into “That’s not really what the document says, idiot!” Linguists would be able to explain the underlying theory of all this; it’s enough for now that one sees that this is how people comprehend the use of an exasperated question ending in “okay.” Avoid this unfortunate turn of phrase.