To listen to an audio of this article and find other articles by this author, visit:

theinspiringrevolutionsblog.blogspot.com

The Play of Words

Written on April 26, 2008

As we listen to other people speak, many of us assume that we understand the true and full meaning of
their words. But maybe, we are just as, if not more, likely to be living based on the assumptions of our
own mind rather than the true intent of the person’s words. And this idea isn’t only important in your
personal relationships. It is central to our relationship with government, and it will play a major role in
defining this presidential election.

On February 25, William Kristol illuminated this key factor in his New York Times article entitled “It’s All
About Him.” This article wasn’t necessarily important because of what it said. Even more important is
understanding how he came to believe what he said. And in that distinction, we are touching on what is
certain to be a crucial part of the presidential campaign – how we choose to be influenced by “the play
of words” that are spoken by, written by, and in the minds of politicians, the media, and other citizens.
But before we get to Kristol’s article, let’s understand more about the meaning of a word.

For years, I have been training students in advanced communication skills, and in those trainings I often
cover a core principle of communication: the idea that the meaning of any given word or phrase will be
different for each person who comes across it. The pictures, thoughts, sounds, and feelings that enter
your mind in response to what another person says are often very different from what is going through
their minds when they say it. And so you really can’t understand the full and complete meaning behind
someone else’s words. More often than not, what you think they mean is not what they actually mean.

Of course, the more information that we can get from the source – the speaker, writer, or thinker – the
more we can understand what is behind their words. What kind of information do we want? Least help-
ful, but still important, are verbal explanations. This requires us to have trust in what they say, trust that
they are giving us the truth of their intentions, beliefs, and promises rather than what we want to hear.

The more general the explanation, the less valuable it will be because we must then fill in the missing
pieces of meaning within our own minds. The more specific the explanation, the more valuable it will be
because we can then be more clear about what is actually meant when we hear the general words that
we all like to hear – like choice, freedom, prosperity, peace, etc.

More valuable than specific explanations are actions. Actions show a higher level of commitment to the
words that are spoken because it takes more effort and it moves closer to an actual result. And yet, even
more valuable than an action is a series of actions. Someone can do something once to appease us. But
when they do something consistently over time, we can be even more certain about their commitment
to their words. And then, we can also know “the truth,” or meaning, of their words.
The problem that we are currently experiencing within our culture is that we often get less information
instead of more information. And even when we do get enough information, we only get little pieces at
one time, which means that we have to piece it altogether for ourselves in order to really find the truth
behind a candidate’s words.

For instance, the media likes to take a speech and only give us a snapshot of what is actually said… and
we simply take it without doing our due diligence, without doing any research. It seems that we like to
believe whatever we want to believe, and so we take what we hear and construct meaning out of it in
order to fit our own model.

We seem to think that’s freedom. But that’s not freedom. The truth will set you free. And your truth is
not always the truth. If you’ve already made your choice, then you don’t really have a choice. Freedom
comes through openness, not through rigidity. Freedom comes from change that creates a new future,
not from reproducing what you already believe and what you have already done in the past. If you want
true freedom, you must earn it. And in an election, part of that freedom comes from opening your mind
to get the truth from the source. When the source doesn’t give you the truth, you demand it. And if the
source still won’t give you the truth, then you find someone else to lead you who will. That is the power
of a democratic citizen, and you are not a democratic citizen just by living in a nation that claims it’s a
democratic nation. Actions speak louder than words, and consistent actions speak louder than single,
one-time actions. And so we must act.

Now, in his article, Kristol makes the claim that Obama believes that he will be the one to fix our “broken
souls” instead of us to choosing and working to fix it for ourselves. But I must admit that I do not know
how Kristol can know Obama’s beliefs so well (seemingly better than Obama himself) especially when
Obama’s words and actions seem to be otherwise. So what is the bigger conflict between the words of
Kristol and Obama (as well as those of Obama’s wife, Michelle, who was heavily quoted in the article)?

Realize first that whatever I might say in the paragraphs ahead are only possibilities of meaning. Just as
Kristol cannot know the true and full meaning of Obama’s words, neither can I. I also cannot know the
fullness of what is behind Kristol’s words, especially since I know less of his words and actions than I do
Obama’s. But I will venture to give different possibilities to think about than what Kristol presented in
his article because I believe that it was a very narrow and poorly supported view… perhaps even a play
of words that was more inaccurate than accurate. So take Kristol’s words seriously. Take mine seriously.
Take Obama’s and Michelle’s seriously. And then make up your own mind based on your own research,
your own analysis, and your own intuition.

Kristol claims that Obama’s explanation of his choice not to wear an American pin was a sign that he
“couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation.” But what is really the problem with that kind of explanation,
and what if that is the “true” explanation? Don’t we want to hear a “grandiose explanation” if it’s the
truth? And don’t we want leaders who think out the principles and motives behind their actions before
they actually take those actions?

Kristol then went onto claim that Obama’s words showed that he believed he was “too good” or “too
patriotic” to wear the pin. But what does “too good” or “too patriotic” actually mean? Kristol, who is a
writer, should know that linguistically the word “good” is an evaluation that does not show any of the
substance or meaning in the actual words spoken and that the word “too” is a comparison word that
does not show what you are comparing something to. Did Obama ever say those specifics words? No.
Then how does Kristol know that he believes them and feels that way?

Now, in Kristol’s support, Obama did say that he believed the pin became a substitute for “true” patriot-
ism and then went on to define “true patriotism” as speaking out on issues. Here we can question into
Obama’s words. He probably should have said “for some people” because there are certainly those who
wear the pin and experience true patriotism. Furthermore, he might have given a limited definition of
true patriotism, which, for instance, might also include acting out on issues. But that is where we must
question Obama to go deeper into what he believes. Instead, Kristol claims what Obama believes with-
out going to the source.

Perhaps, in not wearing the pin, Obama wanted to show that outward symbols do not define patriotism,
nor do they encompass all of patriotism, but that they can still certainly express a form or part of pa-
triotism. In not wearing the pin, he was not necessarily criticizing all people who wore them. And he also
certainly did not say he was better than anyone for not wearing it. Through his words and actions, it
seems just as, if not more, plausible that he was showing that our character is not only defined by a
symbol, that it does not have to be defined by a symbol, that there are actions that can take our patriot-
ism even farther, and that we must question what are patriotism even is.

In a world of labels, what do our labels mean? Wearing a pin has different meanings for different
people. The words “Democrat” and “Republican” mean something different depending on who you ask.
Words and gestures are symbols that help us express something, and perhaps Obama wanted to go
deeper into what those symbols might mean to us. It does not mean that he thinks he is better or that
he is better. What does the word “better” mean anyways?

Furthermore, his words and actions might also mean that he is actually an effective leader. Do you want
a leader who urges you to focus only, or even primarily, on symbols (or labels)? Or do you want a leader
who can appreciate those symbols, even if not choosing to use them, while at the same time urging you
to go deeper into their meaning and to then take action on that meaning? Is this explanation not equally
as plausible as Kristol’s? Perhaps it is even closer to the truth. Perhaps Obama made the mistake of not
expressing his appreciation of symbols, but nevertheless still does appreciate them, especially when, as
Obama states, it was during the build up to the Iraq war, a time when the idea of patriotism was being
defined and limited by many different people.

Maybe the popularity that Obama has is a testament to the idea of questioning what exists beneath the
surface of things. It does not mean that we can’t or won’t value the surface of things. It means that we
can focus on more than just the surface of things. It means that we must question what the surface
represents and decide on what we want it to represent. And that might just be the idea that Obama was
standing for. A leader must stand for something. Otherwise, we would have no idea what kind of leader
they will be… and it doesn’t make them elitist for doing so. Standing for something does not mean that
you stand against anything. You can stand for all sides of an issue while choosing to emphasize the side
that hasn’t received enough attention. Obama’s actions do not mean that he has, what Kristol called,
“moral vanity.” In fact, his stand might make him an inspiring leader… which then leads us to another
important part of the article.

Kristol also claims that Obama believes that he himself is the one that will change the nation and fix eve-
ryone’s lives (thus, the title of the article is “It’s All About Me.”) He uses speeches by Michelle in which
she says that Barack understands that we must “fix our souls… before we can work on *our+ problems”
and that he will “demand” that we “push” ourselves, “move out of *our+ comfort zones,” and “engage.”
Nowhere in her speech does she say or imply that Barack believes we “don’t have to work to improve
our souls” and that “*o+ur broken souls can be fixed – by our voting for” him. In fact, Michelle’s words
say just the opposite – that we are the ones who have to make our lives better and that Barack will de-
mand that.

Barack himself says just the opposite as Kristol asserts, and many of his votes and his past work show
that he believes in the power and choice of the people. How Kristol makes the jump that he does is very
unclear, which must make readers wonder whether he is writing from his own bias and attempting to
use “the play of words” to mix up what other people say and mean.

There is a huge difference between a leader who inspires and a leader who saves, between a leader who
fosters independence and one who breeds dependence. I understand the concern that Kristol might be
expressing in regard to people wanting to be saved and hoping for some outside to cure to their ills. In
fact, I wrote an article entitled “Searching for Bobby Kennedy” that expressed this same idea. But just
because you have certain concerns doesn’t mean it is “right” to impose those concerns upon someone
else’s words to change the intended meaning.

Journalists of integrity search for truth. They do not create the truth to match their own ideas, values, or
interests. If Kristol has concerns that come from what Barack or Michelle (or any candidate, spouse, or
supporter) says, then he should go deeper into what they meant by going to the source and getting fur-
ther explanation and proof through their actions. That is fair and accurate journalism. And I believe that
most readers want the truth instead of a play of words… which leads me to my final comment on the
article.

Kristol asserts that there is “empirical evidence” showing that conditions for Americans have improved
over the years. But that kind of general statement does not give any idea about what “improvement”
actually means. And anyone who has done work in research knows that the numbers can be calculated
to prove any point. While his comment might be true, it is incomplete and nonspecific. So, in order to
balance his claim, here are some questions you might want to reflect on:

If conditions have improved over the years, does that necessarily mean they’re not diminishing now? Is
it possible that the current trend for many people is a downward spiral that is undoing the progress of
the past? How were these conditions even measured? And were they based on the nation’s output and
wealth or individual citizens’ output and wealth? Were they experienced by all Americans at all times in
all ways, or only for some Americans some of the time in some ways?
And even if citizens’ material conditions have improved consistently and across the board, perhaps the
conditions that voters seek are not material. Maybe what they want isn’t so calculated and quantifiable
as the “empirical evidence” might suggest. Maybe voters are looking for progress on emotional, mental,
and spiritual levels. Maybe they do feel an emptiness in their souls. And maybe they are wanting to dig
beneath life’s surface symbols to find more meaning, inspiration, and connection. Maybe Kristol should
look at Obama’s increasing popularity and see the truth in people’s desires rather than just in his own
biased opinions.

I do not care whether Obama is our next President or not. I do not even know whether he is most “right”
and most capable for the position. And I do not know whether I will vote for him next November. I do
not even think it is what matters. I believe that the principles, needs, desires, choices, and actions of the
people are most important. And I believe that they deserve the truth from those who write as if they
know the truth.

The full truth can only be discovered with the qualities of openness, impartiality, acceptance, and ques-
tioning – of one’s self and others. I appreciate Kristol’s willingness to be critical. I simply wish that it
were done with the integrity of seeking something closer to the whole truth. As you take in the vast
amounts of information that you will certainly come across in this campaign make sure to seek the truth,
too.

The story of the Tower of Babel is a clear representation of the tendency of words to separate us rather
than unite us. There can be mischief and deception in words because they can act as masks of what we
are thinking, feeling, and intending inside. If our words are only based on our self-interest and the prop-
agation of our own personal motives and principles (also called propaganda), then those words will sep-
arate us. But if our motives include everyone, then we will make sure to clarify the confusion of the
Tower of Babel so that we are all on the same page. In separation, we fall. In union, we rise. We have
the choice to use our words toward either outcome. That is one of the morals of the Tower of Babel.

The truth will set us all free. And to get to the truth, we must question what we know, what we hear,
what we see, and, overall, everything that we experience in regard to this election. Ultimately, I do not
know whether Kristol is expressing the truth. I do not know whether Obama is expressing the truth. And
as I said, I have no vested interest either way because I do not know who will be the best President, and
I have not yet made my own choice of who I will vote for. That choice will only be final when it is time…
in November. Until then, I will continue to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And the truth right now is that there is more evidence to back up Obama’s belief in the people than evi-
dence to back up Kristol’s belief in Obama’s self-focused “moral vanity.” So perhaps, in support of his
claims, Kristol might be willing to give more evidence that his opinion, his incomplete assertion, is true.
In the end, regardless of whether he chooses to add more integrity and substance to his work, you have
the responsibility to seek if for yourself. You have a vested interest in it. We have a vested interest in it.
And you are a democratic citizen… regardless of whether you live in a democratic nation. The people will
always have greater power than their leaders because they have the power of choice, massive choice.
To learn more about leadership and this election,
you can purchase The Makings of a President, at:
www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- When have others misunderstood the meaning, intention, and feelings behind your words? What could
they have asked you in order to better understand “the truth” behind what you said?

- When in your past have you misunderstood the meaning, intention, and feelings behind others’ words?
What could you have asked them in order to better understand “the truth” behind what they said?

- What are some current misunderstandings between you and others in your life? What questions could
you ask (or could they ask you) to clear up the misunderstandings?

- What causes you to make assumptions about others’ words? What prevents you from digging deeper
into their true meaning?

- Where do you use words to mask the truth?

- Where do you play with words so that people will believe what you want them to regardless of what
the deeper truth is? Where do you try to sway them in a direction without trusting them to find their
own direction?

- What biased beliefs or interests are you afraid might be sacrificed if you found out more information
and therefore had to change your perspective and approach?

Knowledge means change, change means letting go, and letting go opens the door to progress.

- So what progress could you achieve by letting go of your assumptions about other people’s intentions
and perspectives and opening your mind to their truth?

- What assumptions are you currently making about the presidential candidates?

- What questions would you ask them to clear up any misunderstandings? If you can’t ask them, how
can you find out the information you need?

- One by one, imagine voting for each of the candidates. Notice any resistance you have to voting for
each one. For each candidate, write a list of everything that is causing resistance to voting for them. As
you look at each item on the list, where is your resistance based on your own biased assumptions and
your acceptance of others’ assumptions (including the media), and how can you get more information to
know the more of the “truth?”