Have you given much thought to Michelle Obama’s role in her husband’s campaign? I hadn’t — at least not until I saw this headline on USA Today. Now I’m wondering, “why do people think she’s a distraction?” “Is she going to hurt her husband’s chances?”
The same thing happens to you when you respond to others’ accusations. When you issue denials like “We’re not going to condemn private property,” “We’re not going to hurt the economy,” “We’re not extremists,” and the like, a lot of people who never thought about it before will start to wonder about whether there’s any truth to the allegations you are denying.
Since people are apparently accusing Mrs. Obama of being a distraction, how do you think she should have responded to that?
And if those same people accused you of being an environmental extremist, how could you respond other than deny it?
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
Reiterate the message of what you ARE doing and why you are doing it. repeat.
I think doing it this way also subverts the media tendency to portray positions as in opposition. If you don’t “oppose” the other position, people are more likely to ponder for themselves whether your position and your opponents’ position are really mutually exclusive or incompatible.
Even using the same words of the people accusing you links you to the accusation. For example, if accused, “Why are you so extreme?” — don’t answer “I’m not extreme, I’m moderate,” because it reiterates the sound “extreme” in listeners’ ears. Instead, simply & directly state your positive case, using your own language. Even the most experienced politicians and debaters forget this point, to the detriment of their purpose.
I had to look back and find this blog post after listening to Nancy Pelosi in an interview with NPR this morning.
She was asked, “Representatives from the tobacco companies say that a 61 cent tax on each pack of ciggarettes sold will cost them jobs. Is this true?”
Pelosi responded, “It will improve public health, is what it will do.”