WHY POLITICANS DON’T MEDIATE

I’ve been asked several times why politicians don’t use mediation as a way to resolve different points of view.

To address this, I remind people the words we choose provides insight into thought and values. I then ask them to avoid thinking about the content of political speech, but instead of the words themselves, and for a moment think of politicians as a species for study.

The result? Politicians start their careers by “winning” a competitive “race.” During their campaign their progress is gauged by “how many points” they are “ahead” of their “opponent.” Politicians say they are going “to fight” for us. A good politician is a strong “fighter.” In fact, some mght even remind us we’re going to become tired of “winning.”

Their language tells us that today successful politicians view themselves as competitors in a series of win-lose combats. Politcal adversaries with this perspective don’t engage in mediation because they see compromise as a weakness and a good politician never admits defeat.

So this raises the question whether or not we want our politicians to compromise or hold firm. Some psychologists argue we perceive consistency as a core trait of leadership—that a politician who “waivers” is soft and uncommited.

Perhaps we should consider the reason politicians don’t compromise is because to be elected they must position themselves as contenders who won’t reliquent their positions and that we play a part in projecting such expectations to influence these hardline stances on both sides of the political spectrum.