Dealing with BY LARRY RUDIGER I’ve done a number of articles trying to draw some connections between psy- chological research and our lives. But in commenting on free speech in light of the gathering backlash against the civil union resolution to the Baker ruling, things are a little different; I know it requires veering outside my area of expertise into opinion, and I don’t want to pawn it off as anything else. You’ve been warned. Still, in my series, I covered much of what I believe social psychology has to say about free speech, and hitting on the main points again could be valuable as we contemplate reacting to the negative and attacking ads being run by anti- GLBT groups. First, when a topic does not concern most people, and they have spent little time considering it, then they are, as a group, more open to persuasion. In gen- eral, a degree of similarity between the target and the source makes the target more receptive: they’ll listen at first, if only because they perceive some com- mon ground. But in addition, it helps if the source has some credibility: do they seem to know what they’re talking about? Second, these, the ‘undecided,’ are prone to be more persuaded in the short term by emotional appeals, but their atti- tudes are going to be influenced in the long term by rational arguments. In fact, they are going to be more persuaded over time hearing multiple perspectives — a debate, if you will — because it helps them define and elaborate the reasons they hold a certain opinion. Third, as people form an opinion, it changes the way they respond to new information. Things, that are inthe gener- al direction of their emerging attitude will receive more careful consideration. Over time, though, things that run counter to their attitude are likely to be discounted and discredited (along with their sources, who are at risk of being considered biased and unreliable). Finally, the closer the source of per- suasion, the more powerful the message. A one-on-one conversation will be more compelling than a lecture, which will trump a television commercial or news- paper advertisement. As is always the case with general statements about groups, there is going to be a great deal of variability between individuals. Some people will prefer emotion—laden personal stories; others favor objective, rational arguments. I think it’s important to stay mindful ofthese basic findings. Like it or not, one of the effects of the recent civil unions struggle has been to thrust us into a bit of a public relations contest -- a contest in which the outcome is, to my eyes, still uncertain. What are the implications? They are probably familiar, and they may strike some as being ‘assimilationist’ or some type ofa sell-out. Let me explain. If were interested in persuading . Vermonters that civil unions legislation is a good thing, then the case is more convincing when it comes from some- body they’re comfortable with. Turn it around for a bit: are you persuaded by Hate Speech one with a radically divergent political orientation? Or do you analyze their every word, routing out inconsistency, actively seeking dark motives? Many people have been upset by newspaper advertisements the opposition has recently run; whatever way you look at it, comparing us to Nazis is dirty pool. But it’s also bad public relations, mostly because, on even cursory analysis, it’s a stupid analogy (for starters, the Nazis were a decidedly reactionary, conserva- tive movement, not some radical revolu- tion). Running the opposition’s ads as they’ve gotten nastier and more personal has been perhaps a questionable decision by the Burlington Free Press and other regional papers. However, a ‘kill the messenger’ attitude will not, I think, get us very far in the minds of the undecid- ed. Focusing on the paper’s choice to run the advertisement (which First Amendment hard-liners will probably defend) misses the point: sending out those ads was stupid, ill-conceived, and probably a tactical disaster. It offers what are, in the long run, easily countered arguments. But in trying to silence the opposition, we can create a sense of lin- gering doubt: maybe they are right; if they’re not, then why must civil union advocates resort to shutting down the discussion instead of countering it? How to counter it? I don’t know if there’s a cheap and easy way. Letters to the editor that challenge the decision to run the ads might lead to some sort of mea culpa} But it will not turn the Free Press into an unpaid source of advertise- ment for our side — in fact, it would com- promise their joumalistic integrity even -further. They’re a business. We need to pay for and run our own ads. In fact, I would propose using the ads as a starting-point. Repeat the arguments and show why they don’t hold up. Anybody who’s already convinced of that position is, I fear, too far gone. Don’t waste your time with them. But others, whom, I predict, will actually be a bit revolted at first, can come to see two important things: those arguments are faulty, and the real goal of the ads — painting us as degenerates — is devious and offensive. What sort of people must do that to get their way? When that’s the question hanging in the air, we’re at a decided advantage. . It may not help, and we may be wit- nessing the gathering storm of a fierce ‘backlash (though I doubt it). But of this I am quite convinced: we’re better served by a marketplace of ideas that allows for even offensive ones. Remember that, to some, our very existence is offensive. We’ve already profited greatly from a mostly unrestricted press — including Out in the Mountains. Now it’s time for the difficultjob of prevailing in the court of public opinion on the merit of our posi- tion and of the truth, not on what should or should not be said. ' Larry Rudiger lives in Burlington.V June 2000 | Out in the Mountains I13 S Cl m Cl l' Cl Foundation of Vermont is pleased to announce our Year 2000 Grants Brattleboro Area AIDS Project - $1,500 Brattleboro, Vermont Green Mountain Freedom Band - $500 St. Albans, Vermont Lyndon State College - $625 Lyndonville, Vermont Mountain Pride Medial Out In The Mountains - $5,000 Richmond, Vermont Outright Vermont- $4.000 Burlington, Vermont Pride Vermont 2000 - $2.000 Burlington, Vermont RU12? Community Center - $2.000 Burlington, Vermont ‘ Springfield College I Creative Works - $350 St. Johnsbury, Vermont Vermont CARES - $1,500 - Burlington, Vermont Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force - $3.500 Middlebury, Vermont Women's Crisis Center - Windham County - $2.000 Brattleboro, Vermont Women's Rape Crisis Center Same Sex Domestic Violence Subcommittee - $2.000 Burlington, Vermont The 2000 Samara Foundation grants are made possible through the generous support of our individual and corporate contributors and from the generous bequests of our Founding Benefactors: Robert Mundstock (1947 — 1992) Douglas C. Howe (1949 — 1996) The Douglas C. Howe and Frank E. Shivers Trust Our Missionga, The Samara Foundation of Vermont is_ communities today and build an endowment for tomorrow.