Learn More About Candidate Conversations

During the last Republican Convention, I participated in a civility event called the Purple Tent. It was put on by Project Love. I was the Moderator for the Polling and Media discussion. What interested me most, however, was a comment made by Michael Steele, a former Present of the Republican Party, this brings us to Better Outcomes, Peaceful Disruption.

We’ve all heard it. Every election season, we are subjected to the mudslinging, negative, divisive rhetoric politicians direct toward one another. However, we feel there’s a better way. Candidate Conversations are an alternative to typical political debates. Instead of using moderators who permit, and sometimes even encourage conflict between the candidates, we use mediators and mediation guidelines to control the language used. In addition, our mediators help the candidates give the observers complete, comprehensive answers to their questions. Our goal is to give the people who vote for a candidate the means to make an objective, more or less rational, choice.

HOW ARE CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS DIFFERENT?

Instead of “debate” over issues, the Candidate Conversation introduces all candidates for office through an interview-style process, led by a mediator, not a moderator. This is uniquely important because the candidates are not permitted to use insults, falsehoods or manipulative rhetorical techniques to distract or overpower the opponent. Instead, they must call on their own positive character traits, ethics and knowledge of policy to set themselves apart from the others as the most qualified choice for the voters.

OUR PROCESS

The only time we allow candidates to refer to past mistakes is in reference to how they would do things differently, or better. Once the candidates have responded to our standard interview questions, the mediator helps the audience become the interviewer, and a Q&A forum takes shape.  Finally, the session can close with a simulation, which puts the candidates on a hypothetical “task force,” dealing with issues that are part of their campaign platforms. The candidates will spend 15-20 minutes working together to demonstrate their creative, collaborative leadership skills. At the end of the session, they should be able to produce an action plan for addressing the issues.

OUR GOAL

We believe that Candidate Conversation will demonstrate to the citizens of Ohio and beyond, that the political process need not be about personal insults and partisan fury, but rather an honest discussion about the issues. Politicians will be interested in finding beneficial solutions, will be open to new ideas and willing to compromise in the name of a stronger community.

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING

State Senator Frank LaRose, a Republican running for re-election to Ohio’s 27th Senate District, participated in a Candidate Conversation with his Democratic challenger, George Rusiska, during the general election campaign in the Fall. Senator LaRose recently reflected,

“Far too often our conversations surrounding election season are characterized by talking points and insults. None of which helps voters make a better-informed decision. This forum provided a rare opportunity for thoughtful dialogue and debate.”

George Rusiska, LaRose’s challenger stated:

” I participated in a civil discourse debate hosted by Lou Kraus of Better Outcomes: Candidates Conversation. The Mediator used structured questions to guide the dialogue. There were no attempts to incite the audience nor screaming into the microphone. It was a very calming and effective way of getting facts to the audience. I enjoyed the experience and found it useful.”

The Akron Beacon Journal’s Stephanie Warsmith described the Candidate Conversation approach as “mediator who wants to bring order to the political process” and who is not going to permit an event to become “a battle like people are used to.”

Candidate Conversations are meant to raise the visibility of mediators and any and all of the people who understand what the effect of the language we are used to using is. In order to make it work, we are going to need people who are credential by the State in which the event is being held. All of the paperwork that goes with the process make the candidate’s appearance their choice.”

How Did Things Get This Way?

According to Marshall Rosenberg, in his book “Nonviolent Communication”, that is when our 8, 000-year-old creation myth began about how the world came to be. This myth held that a very virtuous male god crushed to smithereens an evil female goddess, and out of this crushing of the evil force with the good force, that energy created the planet and the people on it. This started a rather tragic image: that human beings are basically created out of nasty energy: Therefore, we need to have superior people control us. This is where the idea of blame, criticism and punishment started.

About 5,000 years ago, we started thinking that since human beings are created out of nasty energy, we must be innately evil. We needed a way to deal with blame, criticism and punishment, so penitence became our corrective process. We thought, when people are behaving badly, we must make them hate themselves for what they did. So, for political and theological reasons, we developed a language that cuts us off from the community and makes it quite easy to be violent.

This pattern of behavior persists regardless of the knowledge we have gained. Unfortunately, our old brain protects us from dangers that no longer exist. We react too quickly to what we interpret, which may be simple external differences, first and react to them. Our newer Cerebral Cortex loses the race and our problems increase.