IV. Bad Benchmarks

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurdle #2:  Bad Benchmarks.

On the table before you are two platters.  Piled upon one is a steamy heap of fecal matter, on the other a lump of coal.  If I tell you that the coal is a tasty morsel compared to the poo pile, will I have compelled you to eat the coal?  I trust we all agree that feces are an unacceptably low standard for edible things.  Comparing something to a low standard never makes a compelling case. 

When our basis for comparison is something that anyone in the discussion believes represents a low standard, the comparison loses its punch.

So my question to you is this:  Do you think that your political opposition is the benchmark for intelligent leadership?  You most probably don't.  Nevertheless, political discussions generally involve comparisons of one party to another, or one politician to another, with the intent of making a point.  But such comparisons are futile.  They simply lack impact because the person on the other side of the discussion is not going to recognize your candidate or your party as the benchmark for intelligent leadership.  Nor should they.

No politician or party is the benchmark for intelligent leadership. But rather, every politician, along with her party, should be held to some other benchmark that we all agree represents the highest standard.  That mutually agreed upon standard reveals itself as we identify those points at which our value systems converge.  Those points of convergence - our united front - represent the highest standard; our united front IS the benchmark.