Hi, Kids! Today's Lesson: The 5 Ways to Respond to a Political or Media Attack
We'll Use The Attack On Georgia's Election Law As Our Guide
Hi, kids! Great job on learning the logic lesson recently about the “Strawman Argument.” For today’s lesson, we are going to focus on the press and social media. Specifically, what are the five ways nearly everyone responds to a political attack or accusation? This is important, because in today’s culture if you express an opinion on social media that runs counter to “popular culture,” you could be attacked.
We have so many examples to use, from “cancel culture,” to the “apology mania” sweeping across America. But the brouhaha over Georgia’s election reform law is the one we will focus on today. And it is a dandy. There are so many different actors involved! There is much to analyze here.
Let’s Set The Table. What’s In This New Georgia Law?
Just a few days ago, Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed into law Senate Bill 202. I’m not going to ask you to read the 93-page bill (extra credit if you do!), but it made some adjustments to the way people vote in Georgia. Let me share with you a few examples.
First, the new law allows Georgia’s voters the ability to vote early, in person, at least 17 days prior to election day, with an option for two more, including Sundays. New York, by contrast, only allows 9 days. That’s where Major League Baseball is headquartered, but more about them later.
Second, the Georgia law lets voters apply for mail or “absentee” ballots for any reason. So many other states, including President Biden’s home state of Delaware, require you to state a reason why you cannot be present to vote on election day.
Third, if you wish to apply for a mail-in or absentee ballot, you must have your request in 11 days before the election. While it is true that most states allow you to do it in 7 days or less, the US Postal Services recommends you request your ballot 15 days in advance to make sure all your mail is received and delivered.
Fourth, and here is what really upsets Democrats, Georgia changed the “verification” process for mail-in ballots - voter ID. When you apply for a ballot by mail, you are most often required to provide a signature so it can be matched with the one they have for you on file (sometimes a driver’s license, sometimes a voter registration card). But signatures can change over time as people get older, or maybe have issues. So Georgia did something rather ingenious. They require you to put a number on your application, such as a driver’s license, a state ID, or even a utility bill, and even the last 4 numbers of your Social Security number. Such a better way to verify who the voter is!
Can anyone tell me why Democrats are so upset at this? Class? Anyone? Bueller? Could it be that it makes it harder to cheat by casting ballots on behalf of people who either don’t vote or maybe, aren’t alive? Surely we can agree that that would be wrong, even illegal.
What about the people who don’t have any kind of identification, you might ask? How many of you have a social security number? All of you? That’s what I thought. Even if you don’t, did you know that the State of Georgia will provide one for you at no charge? And the new law provides other forms of identification that are acceptable. Estimates are that 97% of currently eligible voters have a driver’s license or state ID number they need, and that’s not counting other forms of identification that are permissible under the law, such as providing the last four numbers of one’s Social Security number. The law compares pretty favorably to most other states.
Here’s a question. What activities do we typically engage in that require some kind of official identification? Here’s a handy chart, although it is not quite correct that valid IDs are not required to vote: Most states require that, at least the first time you vote.
Some people are upset over a 5th provision that prevents people from serving you water and food if you’re standing in line. But it is also illegal to engage in political activity - “electioneering” - near voting booths, and providing food and water allows them to circumvent the law in a sneaky way. The new law provides that unattended water stations be available for voters who have to wait in lines. How many of you actually need food or water while standing in a voter line, if there is one? That’s what I thought.
And about waiting in lines. The law makes provisions to add staff if people are waiting in line for a long time. The lines have to be evaluated a few times throughout the day.
One new feature of our elections this year was ballot drop boxes. Many of them were put in place by some governments but were mostly funded by Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, through a non-profit organization, the Center for Tech and Civic Life. In Georgia, they authorized drop boxes in the law (for the first time!) but said elections cannot be subsidized by private persons or organizations. Can you imagine what might happen if either Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association began subsidizing official elections? Do you think they would be “free and fair?” There are a few other provisions, but these are the ones that seem to have drawn the more ire.
Very sadly, people are lying about the new law, even the President of the United States. President Biden said voting would end at 5 p.m., but the new law doesn’t change the time when polls are open, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Why would he lie like that?
So, what has been the attack against the bill and the people who support it? It is “racist,” “restrictive,” and engages in “voter suppression.” Worse, Atlanta, the state capitol, was punished by Major League Baseball by removing its annual All-Star game from the city. And at least two of the state’s major corporations, Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, criticized the law.
Here’s Our Lesson.
How should Governor Kemp and the law supporters respond? Do you like being called a “racist?” Here are the 5 options he had to respond to these attacks. Which one do you think he took? These are in order of effectiveness.
First: Deny the accusation as firmly as possible. If you have facts to counter the accusation, that’s great! Make no apologies and stand up for the truth.
Second: If you cannot deny the accusation, but it is misleading, you can say, “It is not what you think.” You will need to carefully and succinctly explain that the impression or perception of events is not accurate. You need to be prepared to tell the full truth. And as “Clinton fixer” Lanny Davis - a very experienced expert at defending often true attacks on his clients - tell it early, tell it all, and tell it yourself.
Third: If the accusation is mostly if not completely true and you’re in the wrong, then it is appropriate to quickly, completely, and authentically apologize with a promise that you’ll never do it again. Some say you should “never apologize,” but if it is pretty clear you made a mistake, you will look arrogant not to acknowledge your error. Most Americans seem willing to forgive. Humility is a good look, especially when it is sincere. You may find that people who say “never apologize” actually have. Admittedly, in today’s cancel culture, an apology won’t suffice with some. But it will with most normal people.
Fourth: And this is the most common response to an attack, especially on politicians. Attack the credibility of the accuser. If your accuser “has issues,” you may be able to undermine the attack by citing their lack of credibility. It is not as effective, but it is a common ploy to divert attention away from the attack on you without having to deny, explain, or apologize. After all, as Ronald Reagan once said, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.” Not wrong.
There is a fifth way: Not to respond at all. This is an option largely limited to people who may work for or with an organization but are under attack for a personal tweet or action. Some people engaged in “cancel culture” - they are not nice people - will go after the employer of someone to get them fired and pressure the employer to make certain politically correct statements. Remaining silent and unresponsive is sometimes advisable, depending on circumstances. If you and your employer, or an organization you’re involved with, is under attack for something you’re accused of saying or doing, remaining silent to minimize further damage or stop “fishing expeditions” into your past comments can prevent future mistakes and take the oxygen out of a story. Especially if you’re “small fry” in the scheme of things. And most of us are. Reporters and the activists who feed them will move on to the next targets. And there are always new targets.
There you have it. Now, which of these strategies did Gov. Kemp employ?
If you said the first one, congratulations! He denied accusations that were clearly false, stated why, and wound up undermining the attackers in the process. And he probably helped himself politically since he’s up for reelection next year.
Also, in doing so, he made fools of Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, and Delta Airlines, whose chief executive officers clearly never read the law, know nothing of politics and probably didn’t follow advice from the real experts on their staff. And they do look foolish. Now, they’re the ones under attack, including boycotts. We’ll see how that plays out.
That’s our lesson. Oh, and one more thing. Always tell the truth; don’t lie. Better not to disclose something than tell a falsehood. Don’t destroy your credibility by doing otherwise.
A test may come your way sooner than you think. Will you remember these strategies and tactics when it happens?