Best Communicator

   Do you get me?

Truly! Who else can catch adults' attention better than babies? They make cooing sounds, they gesture, and imitate. They tell us how they feel and want to please us, and be our friends. In other words, babies love us and trust the communicator in front of them will take care of them. Babies make incredible efforts to communicate with their world and learn exponentially fast the language they hear people talk. Considering how prosperous societies throughout the world have been, it is easy to say that babies have made through the worst circumstances and have prevailed to make today's society.
There is still so much to learn from babies.

UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Kofi Annan selected former President Bill Clinton to be the United Nations’ point man for tsunami reconstruction Tuesday, saying no one could better ensure that the world did not forget the needs of the countries devastated by the disaster the day after Christmas (Associated, updated 2/1/2005). 
 

President Clinton with a government more to the right of his party was able to negotiate and get laws passed. Although exercising his communicator’s talents in a growing economy, the competent communicator, Bill Clinton, masterfully used verbal and non-verbal behavior communication to articulate social, relational, and cultural contexts into speeches, conferences, debates, etc., and create support. Here is an extract of the article written by Richard S. Conley (2001), emphasizing Clinton's skills at bringing dissenting people together: 

“This article argues for a more refined conceptualization of presidential success relative to the veto power by incorporating the political dimensions of “blame-game” politics (Groseclose and McCarty 2001) between the branches. The objective is to demonstrate Clinton’s ability to manipulate “strategic disagreement” (Gilmour 1995) with the GOP majority in Congress from 1995-96 and address the implications for formal models of inter-branch bargaining. The “coordination” model, with a focus on spatial analysis of policy positions between the branches, yields an incomplete understanding of veto politics and executive-legislative conflict from 1995- 2000. While Cameron (2000) makes the case that blame-game politics are anomalous for the period he studies,1 such a contention does not fit the context of presidential-congressional relations in the 104th Congress particularly well. While neither the GOP congressional majority nor Clinton necessarily set out to engage in high-stakes, blame-game politics, political considerations— particularly electoral motivations— pushed both sides toward such a strategy when budget negotiations produced stalemate. The unique context of executive-legislative conflict from 1995-96, I argue, laid the groundwork for a return to “normal” modes of bargaining in Clinton’s second term which comport better with the assumptions of the coordination model” (2001).

Although Clinton breached the NAC communication principle “Truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication” when he lied about his affair with Lewinski, one can wonder how they would have reacted if they knew the whole world would learn about their trivial behavior. However, was the lie necessary?

Clearly, I would love to have some of President Clinton’s communication skills: ever regenerating passion and trust for people and justice, knowledge of his time and society.

Reference

Conley, R., S., (2001). President Clinton and the Republican Congress, 1995-2000:

Political and Policy Dimensions of Veto Politics in Divided Government. Department of Political Science. University of Florida. Retrieved from:

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rconley/Clintonvetoespaper.pdf