«
»

frustrated with government bureaucracy?

A lot of the frustration and delays that we experience are related to fear (as in panic) and how we relate to other people, like as if they should not be reactive when they are reactive (and often covertly terrified). In that regard, consider briefly that we have a limited amount of time that we could invest in generating overwhelming public support and then, with a wave of conspicuous public support, directing our servants or agents in government bureaucracy to provide labels that distinguish inferior and superior products- not with a hysterical insistence, but to present a calm, authoritative spin as our consistent emphasis.
I have repeatedly emphasized my concern that time and money has been invested in reactive, adversarial criticisms of lobbying interests and government interventions, rather than investing those resources toward cultivating a swelling wave of public sentiment in favor of specific government protections and, when appropriate, regulatory standards, such as to call for labeling standards that specify the categorically lower nutritional quality of pasteurized products. Such a campaign might have it’s primary value not in altering bureaucratic policy, but in redefining the conversation people have about the issues.
As an analogy, I do not argue with an upset (confused) 4 year-old that there is no such thing as Santa Claus. I re-frame the entire conversation. Consider that the FDA, USDA, and many lawyers are similar to 6 year-olds… and that we have been as well.
It’s like we have been trying to explain calculus to a hysterical 4 year-old and then getting frustrated that they keep asking about when Santa will be arriving instead of even using our technical jargon. One of the biggest pitfalls of intelligent people is the lack of the capacity to empathize emotionally with people of lower intelligence. Arrogant naivete does not always work well, if ever. It does not help to raise your voice when speaking to a deaf person. It does not help to talk to a cop like they are a lawyer. It does not help to talk to a lawyer like they are a scientist. It does not help to appeal to common sense in a conversation in which there is no one listening. We may need to listen more and talk less, but much more precisely.
So, if our public servants act in ways we could interpret as them sincerely wanting to promote labeling guidelines and commercial restrictions that distinguish high-risk substances from safe substances, we can honor them for their intentions as distinct from their policies and then ask them leading questions AS RESPECTFUL REPRESENTATIVES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY (not as protesters or arguing respondents, but, in legal terms, as counter-claimant or cross-plaintiff- I figure that some of you folks might recognize those terms from conversations with people like Joel Salatin): “on what basis do you assess risk and safety? When did you last update your guidelines as to what is categorized as risky? Why did you update it then? When will you update those guidelines again? What guidelines do you use to update your guidelines?”
Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Poly...

Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Polyface Farm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That last one is the really important question. We can interact with public bureaucrats as if they are sincere, good-intentioned, misinformed people who may recognize that they have a growing public credibility problem and we can help them resolve it.
We would not condescendingly argue that the earth revolves around the sun to a 4 year-old who insists that the sun is rising and setting while the earth is still. They simply do not know the word “revolve.” It is useless to try to simply inform them that the earth, which appears still (and flat) to them, is in fact speeding through space.
Basically, we have failed to produce the results we value and then, in some cases, have blamed others for our own failing to produce the results we value. Have mercy on them.
We are blaming people that we know are confused and reactive. That is our ignorance and naivete if we continue to use the same methods and expect different results. We can develop our leadership skills and lead well rather than complain about the crappy leadership of others.
The bureaucratic officers may never be leaders and may always be followers. Why criticize followers for not leading? If they are following the instructions of people who are better at PR and lobbying then we are, then we could focus on getting better at PR and lobbying.
Related articles

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:17 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: