Politics and debates
11/06/14 05:31
I suppose that I should be more interested in politics. Political elections, causes and debates were common in the household in which I grew up. One of my brothers made a failed bid for a U.S. Senate seat. Another brother sees the world in political terms and is constantly engaged in political action, urging people to take action, trying to influence voting decisions and participating in rallies and events. It is not that I don’t care, it is just that the way that we engage in politics in this country doesn’t engage me as much as it does others.
With the primary season moving to its conclusion and the general election looming, I know that we will be inundated with political advertising. Here in South Dakota, the media will be filled with politics. Here in South Dakota, candidate can purchase all of the ad segments a television station has to sell for less money than a modest advertising campaign would cost in California or some other big media state. Since our candidates raise the bulk of their money out of state and since the big funders of political campaigns don’t care what state the candidate comes from, South Dakota candidates have more than enough money to be extravagant with television and radio ads, robocalls, mailings, pop-up Internet ads and other media.
Part of the reason that I don’t have much passion for politics is that much of political discourse in this country is boorish at best. There are virtually no real debates on the issues. Most of the discourse consists of bashing the opponent without laying out any comprehensive plan for governing at all. Negative campaigning works in American politics, though there are a few notable cases of it backfiring.
For some time I have enjoyed listening to Intelligence Squared debates from British Broadcasting. These are Oxford style debates in which teams of two presenters make formal opening statements, ask and answer questions and then make closing statements. There is a formal structure to the debate that discourages interruption, encourages careful listening and provides equal time. The moderator keeps the debate on time. More interestingly, the audience is polled before the debate and then polled again near the end of the debate so that the impact of the debate can be seen in the number of votes that are changed by listening to the debate. The process is distinctly British and decidedly civil.
The range of topics for Intelligence Squared debates is very wide and not always political. There are debates about historic decisions and what might have happened had the decision been otherwise as well as a wide variety of contemporary topics.
The popularity of the debates in the United States has produced a new series of debates along the same lines here in the United States. I haven’t listened to too many of the US debates, but our local public broadcasting station is now broadcasting the debates. The time slot doesn’t happen to be a time when I can listen to the radio on a regular basis, but I can always listen to the programs on podcast.
My big hope is that such structured debate might catch on in the United States. I have said on many occasions that at least once a year our state legislators should be required to listen to a high school debate so that they could learn a little about the process of debate. A good debate does not require interruptions. it does not require shouting. it does not require inflammatory rhetoric. Debating is not the art of keeping your mind closed and never changing your opinion. It is the process of carefully listening and weighing both sides of an argument. It involves getting to know the other side of the debate as intimately as your side.
American politics seem to be much more focused on a winner take all attitude and too often are simply a matter of the person with the person who spends the most lavishly wins.
We need to be about the process of learning how to engage in civil discourse in this country. Quite frankly a politician who is disciplined in their discourse is a rare commodity in today’s American political scene.
The two party system tends to present an either-or scenario. Real politics are more subtle and involve the art of compromise - a skill that is not encouraged. Compromise is often portrayed as weakness in the contemporary political arena. Real life is more complex and more subtle. There are often more than two options.
But I suspect that what I like most about the British Intelligence Squared debates is that the art of debate itself is raised to such a high level that the topics reach far beyond conventional politics. Which author was greater, Emily Bronte or Jane Austin? How about Milton vs Shakespeare? As the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo approaches, what is the proper assessment of Napoleon’s life and legacy? Military genius or blundering nonentity wh created his own enduring myth? The range of topics goes on and on.
Actually, I can be as passionate about literature, philosophy, history and other topics as I am about politics - often more so.
I suppose that it has always been the case that American politics have been extremely polarized. The period of time leading up to the Civil War certainly was not a season of political tolerance and compromise. And there has always been a fair amount of shouting and inflammatory rhetoric in the halls of congress. Still, I long for a more measured and calm debate - an appeal to intelligence and rational thought - that is conspicuously missing from much of contemporary political speech.
Intelligence Squared debates are now being held in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, the United States, Israel, Nigeria and Greece. We often think of Greece as the birthplace of democracy, but seldom think of contemporary Greek politics as places of rational thought and argument. Perhaps these debates can serve to teach us more about how to engage in political speech in ways that add to the common knowledge and understanding rather than the crude attempts at manipulation of public opinion that mark the political scene these days.
Who knows, the right debate might just help me to change my mind.
With the primary season moving to its conclusion and the general election looming, I know that we will be inundated with political advertising. Here in South Dakota, the media will be filled with politics. Here in South Dakota, candidate can purchase all of the ad segments a television station has to sell for less money than a modest advertising campaign would cost in California or some other big media state. Since our candidates raise the bulk of their money out of state and since the big funders of political campaigns don’t care what state the candidate comes from, South Dakota candidates have more than enough money to be extravagant with television and radio ads, robocalls, mailings, pop-up Internet ads and other media.
Part of the reason that I don’t have much passion for politics is that much of political discourse in this country is boorish at best. There are virtually no real debates on the issues. Most of the discourse consists of bashing the opponent without laying out any comprehensive plan for governing at all. Negative campaigning works in American politics, though there are a few notable cases of it backfiring.
For some time I have enjoyed listening to Intelligence Squared debates from British Broadcasting. These are Oxford style debates in which teams of two presenters make formal opening statements, ask and answer questions and then make closing statements. There is a formal structure to the debate that discourages interruption, encourages careful listening and provides equal time. The moderator keeps the debate on time. More interestingly, the audience is polled before the debate and then polled again near the end of the debate so that the impact of the debate can be seen in the number of votes that are changed by listening to the debate. The process is distinctly British and decidedly civil.
The range of topics for Intelligence Squared debates is very wide and not always political. There are debates about historic decisions and what might have happened had the decision been otherwise as well as a wide variety of contemporary topics.
The popularity of the debates in the United States has produced a new series of debates along the same lines here in the United States. I haven’t listened to too many of the US debates, but our local public broadcasting station is now broadcasting the debates. The time slot doesn’t happen to be a time when I can listen to the radio on a regular basis, but I can always listen to the programs on podcast.
My big hope is that such structured debate might catch on in the United States. I have said on many occasions that at least once a year our state legislators should be required to listen to a high school debate so that they could learn a little about the process of debate. A good debate does not require interruptions. it does not require shouting. it does not require inflammatory rhetoric. Debating is not the art of keeping your mind closed and never changing your opinion. It is the process of carefully listening and weighing both sides of an argument. It involves getting to know the other side of the debate as intimately as your side.
American politics seem to be much more focused on a winner take all attitude and too often are simply a matter of the person with the person who spends the most lavishly wins.
We need to be about the process of learning how to engage in civil discourse in this country. Quite frankly a politician who is disciplined in their discourse is a rare commodity in today’s American political scene.
The two party system tends to present an either-or scenario. Real politics are more subtle and involve the art of compromise - a skill that is not encouraged. Compromise is often portrayed as weakness in the contemporary political arena. Real life is more complex and more subtle. There are often more than two options.
But I suspect that what I like most about the British Intelligence Squared debates is that the art of debate itself is raised to such a high level that the topics reach far beyond conventional politics. Which author was greater, Emily Bronte or Jane Austin? How about Milton vs Shakespeare? As the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo approaches, what is the proper assessment of Napoleon’s life and legacy? Military genius or blundering nonentity wh created his own enduring myth? The range of topics goes on and on.
Actually, I can be as passionate about literature, philosophy, history and other topics as I am about politics - often more so.
I suppose that it has always been the case that American politics have been extremely polarized. The period of time leading up to the Civil War certainly was not a season of political tolerance and compromise. And there has always been a fair amount of shouting and inflammatory rhetoric in the halls of congress. Still, I long for a more measured and calm debate - an appeal to intelligence and rational thought - that is conspicuously missing from much of contemporary political speech.
Intelligence Squared debates are now being held in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, the United States, Israel, Nigeria and Greece. We often think of Greece as the birthplace of democracy, but seldom think of contemporary Greek politics as places of rational thought and argument. Perhaps these debates can serve to teach us more about how to engage in political speech in ways that add to the common knowledge and understanding rather than the crude attempts at manipulation of public opinion that mark the political scene these days.
Who knows, the right debate might just help me to change my mind.