Failed Communication - a pre-existing condition?

"I'm just saying. . ."

You have heard that phrase; used to veil a declaration of displeasure. "I think some people need to practice what they preach." "Really? What do you mean?" "Nothing, I'm just saying." Saying what? Why? What's your point? What prompted the comment? I hear what you are saying, but, WHY are you saying it? Feeling a little passive aggressive today?

Few things frustrate me more than the "disembodied judgement." "Some people need to mind their own business - I'm just saying. . ." I think you need to mind your business and own what you are saying!

It is unfortunate that, as a culture, we prefer to cloak our feelings and ideas in glittering generalities rather than approach our communication with each other in direct sentences. Attribution is our crutch. We can safely set our understanding down without actually touching the ground with full weight. We plant seeds of disapproval, with plausible deniability. Is failed communication a pre-existing condition that we can no longer treat?

While we revert to this closeted communication style, we let "some people" take control of public opinion. Public opinion is shaped by the loudest and most direct communicators. "They" keep screaming out their opinion while others step back and timidly "just say" what they think or understand. We do not necessarily like what "some people" are saying, but we don't want to confront it. We may not understand it.

There is my frustration! To confront or disagree with an opinion or idea you must be educated on the facts of the opinion or idea; understand the issues that form the perception. Is that too much trouble? Apparently.

Over the course of the last month, the news cycle has spent a lot of time discussing the issue of racism as the basis for disagreement with the Obama administration. George Will made the comment that there is a "lust to politicize" every issue these days. I suggest that all opposition is driven by fear. . .I'm just saying. . .Fear of change or fear of loss or fear of not being on the winning side.

In times of unrest, and I submit that we are indeed in a time of unrest (i.e. economy, healthcare, two wars), people flock to sides of perceived, shared philosophy. Shared philosophy can be religious or political affiliation; cultural or ethnic; it can be what we were told we believe. We choose a side where we feel safe in numbers. It is so much easier to follow the herd than to break out onto a new path. We may find ourselves alone on the new path; then again we may find a new breed and join forces. We may find ourselves with the responsibility of leadership.

Perhaps the fear could be reduced if we listened more carefully, studied both sides of an issue and focused on the task at hand. It is not the person that needs to be resolved, it is the issue. Obama will continue to be Obama. Limbaugh will continue to be Limbaugh. Wilson will continue to be Wilson. Clyburn will continue to be Clyburn.

Heathcare in this country can be changed.

I'm just saying. . .