Fallibility: a key to success

Being wrong is the only way to be right.

We’ve all seen the spokespeople who go on TV representing political candidates. You know the types:

I represent Sally. Steve is scum. Sally will cut taxes; Steve will raise taxes — and eat your babies. Did you know Steve wants to take away Social Security benefits and give them to Wall Street big-wigs?

Of course, Sally probably has her flaws, and Steve isn’t scum. He’s has different values, which include no desire to eat babies. And of course, no significant discussion of changes to tax law can take place in sound bites, so nobody has any idea what the truth is on that front. Social Security? Steve actually voted for a bill to give taxpayers the option to invest part of their Social Security payments in stocks or mutual funds. This, of course, does come with some amount risk, and it’s probably possible that a Wall Street big wig could make money off of your losses. Sally’s spokesman, though, felt compelled to misattribute Steve’s motivation, saying he “wants” to “give” your money to those big-wigs.

The point is, these people make for great talking heads on TV, but they’re terrible communicators. They put up a façade of infallibility, operating as if their candidates have never made a mistake or demonstrated even a hint of poor judgment or policy-making regret. Their opponents, on the other hand, hope to see the country handed over to socialists/fascists hell bent on taking all of your money/controlling your life.

But if Sally’s spokesman continually operates if Sally is always right and Steve is always wrong, people quickly start to see that Sally’s spokesman if completely full of bullshit. No one is infallible, and no one should ever feel compelled to try to be.

Thus my premise: Being wrong, occasionally demonstrating human qualities like fallibility and humility, is the only way to ever be right. If you’re never wrong, you’re full of shit. If you’re full of shit, you’re never going to be right. If you admit mistakes, sincerely explain decisions that have been smeared as “flip-flops,” and address dissenters’ concerns by answering to them without trying to convert them, you’ll be seen as a straight shooter.

People like straight shooters.

“Imperfections” courtesy of Rickydavid on Flickr

For and Against

“He was for it before he was against it.”  This has been one of the most persistent memes in politics, and to a younger generation of voters is more salient than the previous champion, “What did he know and when did he know it?”

On its face, it seems like a reasonable question to ask.  With greater media scrutiny and an easily accessible archive of news, it’s more difficult than ever to change or refine a position without earning the wrath of your political opponents, tagged as either a Waffler or a Flip-Flopper.  However, there are a number of reasons why such arguments don’t hold water.

Too many external factors.

It’s one thing to say “Are you for private charity?  Or against it?”  The answer would be simple for most.  However, once you find out that the particular charity in mind provides free heroin to middle-school students, then you might blink.

This happens more than you might think in Congress, as Senators and Congressman play games with bills.  They mark them up, tag them with riders, and bloat them with pork.  Sometimes, they manage to sneak in a “poison pill,” an amendment so onerous or self-serving that it gets the whole piece of legislation killed.  Since there’s no official vote other than Yea/Nay/Present, you can be for something and still vote against it.

Personal Growth

We all change.  Most of us, if open-minded, will adjust positions over time.  The key to believability here is the sincerity present in the description of the life-changing moment.  Maybe it’s a loved one who gets terribly ill whose experience gives a politician a different perspective.  Maybe it’s the new friend or co-worker who helps destroy a long-held stereotype.  Maybe it’s losing your religion, or being born again.  It takes a story that rings true, though.

Improper Context

The sound bite culture is too prone to abuse by those who are careful editors.  The stripping away dependent clauses can destroy the context of what someone was trying to communicate.  In other instances, the written word lacks facial expressions or verbal tone that indicate irony.  Beware someone who tries to back up an assertion while attempting to deny you the source material.

Verbal flubs

I’ll dip to a concrete example here.  Sen. Obama and “my Muslim faith.”  It’s clear in the context of the conversation that Obama meant to say “Christian.”  George Stephanopolous brought it to his immediate attention for a quick correction.  The Monday Morning Freudians will try to tell you that Obama’d guard was down, and he was expressing a hidden desire.  Such a question might have merit if the word “Muslim” had not already been uttered.  Words and ideas can do a somersault between the brain and the breath, and those isolated aberrationgs are not an arbiter of truth.

Fair Game

So, what is Fair Game?  Unexplained shifts in position.  Changes in attitude that come with suspicious or opportune timing.  Waffles that attempt to completely deny the existence of a previous stance.

On matters of importance, we deserve to know what drives the distinction, and then it’s up to us to determine as individuals if that explanation is valid and sound.