Richard Tafel: How to Speak Like a Republican
Rich Tafel is founder of The Public Squared, a public policy training program for nonprofits and social entrepreneurs.
For the last decade, Tafel has provided strategic policy advice to nonprofits on a variety of causes, including AIDS programs for Africa, civil rights programs Latin America, and education and health care reform in the United States. He is a guest lecturer in Urban Health and Advocacy at Johns Hopkins University.
Prior to his international consulting, Tafel founded the Log Cabin Republicans in 1993. During his tenure, the Log Cabin Republicans went from an unknown entity to a well-known brand in American political life. At the height of the culture wars, he debated the likes of the Reverend Jerry Fallwell on Larry King Live. He has appeared on most major political TV programs and fought for appropriate AIDS funding and equality for gays and lesbians. He testified before Congress on the need to support the Ryan White Care Act. In 1999, he authored Party Crasher: A Gay Republican Challenges Politics as Usual. Tafel has also been appointed by Governor Weld (R-MA) to manage the adolescent health programs of Massachusetts.
Tafel's work in the public policy arena for social justice causes is inspired by his faith. After graduating from Harvard Divinity School he served at the University Chapel. He is an ordained minister in the Swedenborgian Church. He is a certified coach through Franklin Covey and certified through the International Coaching Association. He's an alumni of the Prince of Wales, Business and Sustainability Program, Cambridge College.
In a ‘Huffington Post’ piece I wrote, oh, over a year ago, I suggested the President needed to learn how to speak Republican because he’s—the Democrats, I think, are unsuccessful so many times,and the truth was it was an attempt to help the Democrats—they’re unsuccessful because they use the language of rights, whereas the Republicans more speak the language of results. It comes back to this whole split between those who embrace the status quo and those who seek to change it. I’ve learned to change things. Almost all my successful change has been from right to left. If I can win over the conservatives, I can win over the left, so I move that way. Most social change movements, because their friends are from the left, they move left to right and they never get there. They always bump up and they say, "These darn Republicans! These darn conservatives!"
When you’re changing a system and people have rights, if you as a progressive come into that debate and say, "I want rights," the impression for the listener is you’re taking something from me. You want something that I have. You want more rights. And that’s not usually true. We’re not taking something from you. A very concrete example, the President was pushing for a universal healthcare mandate for the country, and he kept saying, "Everybody in this country deserves the right of healthcare," and progressives applauded. And I could just feel the conservatives just digging in deeper, deeper, deeper for fear of what was being taken away from them.
And I used as a linguistic way of expressing it, a conservative way of expressing the same goal, would have been to say, "Folks, we have universal healthcare in the United States. It’s called the emergency room, and we pay for it. And we cover people’s healthcare right now who don’t pay into any insurance scheme and you’re carrying them. If you’re paying taxes right now, you’re covering them. Wouldn’t it make sense for us as a nation to just ask those folks to register and get into an insurance program so we can cut their cost, we can be more proactive with their healthcare, and we can avoid the vast growth of healthcare costs?" Now there’s two ways of saying the same thing. One is an appeal to the status quo, the person who’s the more conservative. The other is about rights, and I feel like rights language just by its nature scares people, and I think it’s not usually successful in bringing about change.
I think the issue that divides these two mindsets as status quo versus evolving, I think very often it comes down to a personality. And if you are part of a group that the status quo is not working for you, you’re probably on the -- let’s evolve; I want to change the way gay people are treated; I want to change the way women are treated; I want minorities, people of other faiths, minority faiths. If you’re part of the establishment, it’s a pretty good deal. If you’re part of the status quo, it’s kind of working for you and you don’t understand why anybody would want to change it, and it’s very frightening. So I think it kind of depends on where you fall down in those two areas.
A Democratic rights bill might be something along the line of an immigration bill that says we’re going to give more rights to children who are born in the United States to illegal parents. So we’re going to increase rights to that population. Well, for the conservative mindset you’re breaking the rules. So you’re adding a new group in and you’re incentivizing a process for illegal immigration. Again, a more practical approach in my opinion would have been to say, "We have children in this country who are born here. Under our law, that makes them citizens and they’re born by illegal parents. How are we going to—let’s be practical--to deal with that we need to do this, this and this?"
So again, one of the very practical results-oriented, let’s get these kids registered, do you really want people who are illegal driving around without driver’s licenses because they’re so afraid of being in the system or showing up in the emergency room? So those would be two examples possibly. I think the language of conservatives is more about economics, and economics lends itself more to results. "We’re going to cut the budget. This is what it looks like." It sounds very clear. "We’re not going to raise taxes." That’s a pretty clear result. Or I think on the left, some of the cases that they’re making are more difficult to make in a results-oriented way. But that was always my effort when I was trying to do social change here more domestically, was, how can we make this a result that will come from it as opposed to adding a right that’s going to threaten you as status quo?
Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd
Does President Obama need to learn to speak Republican? He probably will if he wants to be successful in a second term (if elected). Furthermore, you can become a better communicator if you follow Richard Tafel's advice on how to get into the mindset of someone with a different viewpoint.
Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
Using machine-learning technology, the genealogy company My Heritage enables users to animate static images of their relatives.
- Deep Nostalgia uses machine learning to animate static images.
- The AI can animate images by "looking" at a single facial image, and the animations include movements such as blinking, smiling and head tilting.
- As deepfake technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, some are concerned about how bad actors might abuse the technology to manipulate the pubic.
My Heritage/Deep Nostalgia<p>But that's not to say the animations are perfect. As with most deep-fake technology, there's still an uncanny air to the images, with some of the facial movements appearing slightly unnatural. What's more, Deep Nostalgia is only able to create deepfakes of one person's face from the neck up, so you couldn't use it to animate group photos, or photos of people doing any sort of physical activity.</p>
My Heritage/Deep Nostalgia<p>But for a free deep-fake service, Deep Nostalgia is pretty impressive, especially considering you can use it to create deepfakes of <em>any </em>face, human or not. </p>
How long should one wait until an idea like string theory, seductive as it may be, is deemed unrealistic?
- How far should we defend an idea in the face of contrarian evidence?
- Who decides when it's time to abandon an idea and deem it wrong?
- Science carries within it its seeds from ancient Greece, including certain prejudices of how reality should or shouldn't be.
Plato used the allegory of the cave to explain that what humans see and experience is not the true reality.
Credit: Gothika via Wikimedia Commons CC 4.0<p>When scientists and mathematicians use the term <em>Platonic worldview</em>, that's what they mean in general: The unbound capacity of reason to unlock the secrets of creation, one by one. Einstein, for one, was a believer, preaching the fundamental reasonableness of nature; no weird unexplainable stuff, like a god that plays dice—his tongue-in-cheek critique of the belief that the unpredictability of the quantum world was truly fundamental to nature and not just a shortcoming of our current understanding. Despite his strong belief in such underlying order, Einstein recognized the imperfection of human knowledge: "What I see of Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility." (Quoted by Dukas and Hoffmann in <em>Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives</em> (1979), 39.)</p> <p>Einstein embodies the tension between these two clashing worldviews, a tension that is still very much with us today: On the one hand, the Platonic ideology that the fundamental stuff of reality is logical and understandable to the human mind, and, on the other, the acknowledgment that our reasoning has limitations, that our tools have limitations and thus that to reach some sort of final or complete understanding of the material world is nothing but an impossible, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K2JTGIA?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">semi-religious dream</a>.</p>
A physicist creates an AI algorithm that predicts natural events and may prove the simulation hypothesis.
- Princeton physicist Hong Qin creates an AI algorithm that can predict planetary orbits.
- The scientist partially based his work on the hypothesis which believes reality is a simulation.
- The algorithm is being adapted to predict behavior of plasma and can be used on other natural phenomena.
Physicist Hong Qin with images of planetary orbits and computer code.
Credit: Elle Starkman
Are we living in a simulation? | Bill Nye, Joscha Bach, Donald Hoffman | Big Think<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4dbe18924f2f42eef5669e67f405b52e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KDcNVZjaNSU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The vaccine will shorten the "shedding" time.