Wednesday, April 06, 2005
The Lost Art of Debate
Given some time to reflect on the issues of the last few months (I finally have cleared my desk at work, so I now have a few minutes to compose some thoughts) it occurs to me that one of the major failures of the modern political system (by modern I mean the last 20 years or so) is its inability to effectively debate the major issues confronting us both on a policy level and a political level. Maybe this in part explains the popularity of blogs. Admitedly, the internet provides in many ways the safety blanket of anonymity so people feel less inhibited when expressing their personal viewpoints on issues of politics and policy than say they might in a public setting or during a face-to-face discussion or debate on issues. First, let me say that I don’t think this is a partisan problem, both Democrats and Republicans suffer from this anti-discuss and debate affliction But I want to focus on the following two examples:
First, last week, E.J. Dionne Jr.’s column in the Washington Post, talked about the social security debate and specifically President Bush’s "town hall meetings" that have been receiving a lot of attention recently. As many of you may know, the President and his Administration have, since his inauguration in 2001, been very effective at "staging" "public events" to project an image of unity and agreement on a given issue. The modus operandi of the Bush PR department has been to surround the President with only people who are in 100% agreement with him on the issue in contention. This started with the initial tax cuts enacted in 2001 and has continued with almost every major issue with which the President has "campaigned" for around the country, including, but not limited to, the medicare prescription drug benefit, the war in Iraq, his re-election campaign, and most recently, his social security reform proposal. At almost every one of these "events," dissenters, even peaceful non-obstructionist ones have been excluded. During the campaign there were numerous reports of persons who were screened from events based on suggestions and sketchy information suggesting that they didn’t support the President’s re-election. Recently, at a Bush town hall meeting to discuss social security, it has been reported that 3 suit-wearing, ticket-holding individuals were removed from the event based on information that they had arrived in a car that displayed a bumper sticker advocating "no blood for oil." Now I’m not talking about protestors, or people intent on disrupting the event or who pose a security risk. For, I recognize that there is no question that those people need to be kept at a distance from the President for legitimate security reasons. It seems to me, however, a mighty jump in logic to suggest that these particular people intended to be disruptive or caused a security risk. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite, while they might disagree with the President, they were interested in hearing what he had to say and participating in the political process exactly the way many of us would advocate, peacefully and by hearing both sides of the debate before making a decision.
Now in my opinion what the President is engaging isn’t debate or advocacy, rather it is best described as preaching to the choir. While I understand that from time-to-time this is something that all President’s and political figures do, the difference is that many on both sides of the isle do this sparingly, or only when they are fund-raising. The President, on the other hand, appears to engage in this sort of activity almost exclusively. Most members of Congress, state legislatures, governors, and other elected officials represent diverse constituencies, meaning that while they received at least a majority of the votes, not everyone agrees with them. Nevertheless, when they hold town-hall meetings for constituents of their districts there is not political litmus test to be admitted. Speaking as someone who has worked for elected officials both Republican and Democrat, and attended these evens on numerous occasions, I can honestly say that I was never asked to screen people at the door for political affiliations, and my bosses always fielded questions from people both in strong support of his positions and strongly opposed. Simply put, the Presidents events are misleading, always have been. When they receive local television coverage they are designed to present a false picture of agreement and overwhelming support for his positions. Now there is of course some truth to the agreement and support as I don’t doubt that there are a lot of people who do agree with everything the President stands for, as he did win two national elections. That fact, however, doesn’t excuse the erosion of legitimate, honest debate on an issue of national importance. The President’s views have merit, and his position needs to be talked about publicly, but those that oppose his ideas have a point too, and citizens that disagree with the Leader of the Free World, ought to be given the same opportunity to express that to him as those that agree with him. More importantly, I would think, they ought to be given the opportunity to hear him speak and explain his position first hand, rather than rely on the media editing and re-broadcasting of the events. Who knows, he might even change some minds.
Second, and to be fair, there is a flip side to this. As I said above, Democrats are no better at "staging" honest and open debates. This is reflected in today’s Washington Post article noting that a coalition of women’s groups were notified by the National Archives that they would not be allowed to stage an event on social security at the FDR Museum in Hyde Park, NY if they would not include at least one speaker who would present the President’s side of the issue. Now the fact that this letter comes from an Executive Branch agency and is predicated on a pretty ingenious reading of the Hatch Act, raises some interesting questions, but that might be the subject for a different post. What I want to note is the fact that the event as originally scheduled was one sided. In other words, it was no better than the "staged" events being held by the President. I have no doubt that FDR is spinning in his grave over what this President is proposing to do with his social security program, but that doesn’t in my opinion, excuse people from presenting both sides of an issue. In fact, while I understand the purpose of the groups event, it strikes me as more beneficial if they included people with a different point of view if only to better explain why their position is better. I know, I know, I'm being incredilby naive, the people that attend these events don't want fair and balanced, they want red-meat and they are willing to in some instances pay a lot of money to hear it. I should note, however, that the willingess of some "interest groups" to include opposing points of view, is what makes them successful. I'll note the following three groups that I think do this particularly well. First is the Federalist Society, next is its counterpart the American Constitution Society, and finally there is the CATO Institute. All of these groups are successful in part beacuse they are precieved as having a distinct point of view, but also, in my opinion, becuase of thier willingness to debate and engage the opposing points of view even at their own events.
There is a time and place for partisanship and believe me with social security we have only seen the tip of the partisan iceberg, but there is also a need, a great need, for open, honest, forthright debate, by educated people on both sides who are genuinely trying to persuade people that their position is in the best interest of the nation. We have in large part lost the ability to debate in this country and I fear that the inability to engage in an open dialogue even though we may disagree will ultimately lead to bad policies, regardless of which political party is in power. There is strength in contention and power in disagreement, by opening up debate to both sides of an issue the end result will be better, if only we could convince our politicians and more of our special interest groups of this fact.
First, last week, E.J. Dionne Jr.’s column in the Washington Post, talked about the social security debate and specifically President Bush’s "town hall meetings" that have been receiving a lot of attention recently. As many of you may know, the President and his Administration have, since his inauguration in 2001, been very effective at "staging" "public events" to project an image of unity and agreement on a given issue. The modus operandi of the Bush PR department has been to surround the President with only people who are in 100% agreement with him on the issue in contention. This started with the initial tax cuts enacted in 2001 and has continued with almost every major issue with which the President has "campaigned" for around the country, including, but not limited to, the medicare prescription drug benefit, the war in Iraq, his re-election campaign, and most recently, his social security reform proposal. At almost every one of these "events," dissenters, even peaceful non-obstructionist ones have been excluded. During the campaign there were numerous reports of persons who were screened from events based on suggestions and sketchy information suggesting that they didn’t support the President’s re-election. Recently, at a Bush town hall meeting to discuss social security, it has been reported that 3 suit-wearing, ticket-holding individuals were removed from the event based on information that they had arrived in a car that displayed a bumper sticker advocating "no blood for oil." Now I’m not talking about protestors, or people intent on disrupting the event or who pose a security risk. For, I recognize that there is no question that those people need to be kept at a distance from the President for legitimate security reasons. It seems to me, however, a mighty jump in logic to suggest that these particular people intended to be disruptive or caused a security risk. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite, while they might disagree with the President, they were interested in hearing what he had to say and participating in the political process exactly the way many of us would advocate, peacefully and by hearing both sides of the debate before making a decision.
Now in my opinion what the President is engaging isn’t debate or advocacy, rather it is best described as preaching to the choir. While I understand that from time-to-time this is something that all President’s and political figures do, the difference is that many on both sides of the isle do this sparingly, or only when they are fund-raising. The President, on the other hand, appears to engage in this sort of activity almost exclusively. Most members of Congress, state legislatures, governors, and other elected officials represent diverse constituencies, meaning that while they received at least a majority of the votes, not everyone agrees with them. Nevertheless, when they hold town-hall meetings for constituents of their districts there is not political litmus test to be admitted. Speaking as someone who has worked for elected officials both Republican and Democrat, and attended these evens on numerous occasions, I can honestly say that I was never asked to screen people at the door for political affiliations, and my bosses always fielded questions from people both in strong support of his positions and strongly opposed. Simply put, the Presidents events are misleading, always have been. When they receive local television coverage they are designed to present a false picture of agreement and overwhelming support for his positions. Now there is of course some truth to the agreement and support as I don’t doubt that there are a lot of people who do agree with everything the President stands for, as he did win two national elections. That fact, however, doesn’t excuse the erosion of legitimate, honest debate on an issue of national importance. The President’s views have merit, and his position needs to be talked about publicly, but those that oppose his ideas have a point too, and citizens that disagree with the Leader of the Free World, ought to be given the same opportunity to express that to him as those that agree with him. More importantly, I would think, they ought to be given the opportunity to hear him speak and explain his position first hand, rather than rely on the media editing and re-broadcasting of the events. Who knows, he might even change some minds.
Second, and to be fair, there is a flip side to this. As I said above, Democrats are no better at "staging" honest and open debates. This is reflected in today’s Washington Post article noting that a coalition of women’s groups were notified by the National Archives that they would not be allowed to stage an event on social security at the FDR Museum in Hyde Park, NY if they would not include at least one speaker who would present the President’s side of the issue. Now the fact that this letter comes from an Executive Branch agency and is predicated on a pretty ingenious reading of the Hatch Act, raises some interesting questions, but that might be the subject for a different post. What I want to note is the fact that the event as originally scheduled was one sided. In other words, it was no better than the "staged" events being held by the President. I have no doubt that FDR is spinning in his grave over what this President is proposing to do with his social security program, but that doesn’t in my opinion, excuse people from presenting both sides of an issue. In fact, while I understand the purpose of the groups event, it strikes me as more beneficial if they included people with a different point of view if only to better explain why their position is better. I know, I know, I'm being incredilby naive, the people that attend these events don't want fair and balanced, they want red-meat and they are willing to in some instances pay a lot of money to hear it. I should note, however, that the willingess of some "interest groups" to include opposing points of view, is what makes them successful. I'll note the following three groups that I think do this particularly well. First is the Federalist Society, next is its counterpart the American Constitution Society, and finally there is the CATO Institute. All of these groups are successful in part beacuse they are precieved as having a distinct point of view, but also, in my opinion, becuase of thier willingness to debate and engage the opposing points of view even at their own events.
There is a time and place for partisanship and believe me with social security we have only seen the tip of the partisan iceberg, but there is also a need, a great need, for open, honest, forthright debate, by educated people on both sides who are genuinely trying to persuade people that their position is in the best interest of the nation. We have in large part lost the ability to debate in this country and I fear that the inability to engage in an open dialogue even though we may disagree will ultimately lead to bad policies, regardless of which political party is in power. There is strength in contention and power in disagreement, by opening up debate to both sides of an issue the end result will be better, if only we could convince our politicians and more of our special interest groups of this fact.
# posted by mouldfan : 9:45 AM
