This blog was started to place in the public arena, courtesy of the Internet, a different format and style of commentary. That style is more easily described by what it is not - sound bites, canned phrases, doctrinaire positions, dismissive or condescending treatment of opposing positions, familiar partisan mantra - than what it is - analysis which is fundamentally multi-sided, supported by related events, histories and philosophies, and which recognizes that the best policy might well be an amalgam of positions held on the political right, left and center, or a wholly new policy altogether.
It is the style of this blog for one reason - because it teaches.
Sound bites don't teach - they declare. It is up to the listener to decide based on intuition or faith in the source whether or not to believe them. Sound bites don't answer "why?" and they don't suggest you ask, only that you believe, and vote that way. Partisan essays do similarly; they provide ample reason and support from their given partisan side, but not the strongest arguments from other sides.
Sadly, somehow or another, across our country and at all levels of elected office, candidates have settled upon a style of debate which also favors speeches and sound bites instead of well-argued discourse. Candidate A has one minute to answer a question, a.k.a. make a speech; candidate B has 30 seconds to rebut, a.k.a. make a speech, but is not allowed to dialogue with Candidate A, such as to ask Candidate A a question. After the candidates have completed their speeches on the given question, in some formats, the moderator may choose to ask a follow-up question; read that as one follow-up question.
I ask you - how many questions of any complexity were you able to resolve with your spouse, sibling, colleague, project team, etc by asking one question and one follow-up?
The debate audience is privy, therefore, to a very short-circuited debate, a very short-circuited treatment of any question.
Further, as mentioned, candidates might have one minute to address a question initially. Again, how many questions of any complexity have you addressed or heard addressed in one minute?
So candidate debates have become necessarily and unavoidably that which is the antithesis of this blog - and I reiterate - sound bites, canned phrases, doctrinaire positions, dismissive or condescending treatment of opposing positions, familiar partisan mantra. And what do these things fundamentally not do? They do not teach.
More shocking but for the institution in which the following debate takes place, our Congress and Senate employ the same basic debating rules.
Listen to C-SPAN. In Baltimore, it is 90.1 on your dial. It is your ear to your daily government at work. You will hear, at the beginning of a floor debate, how many minutes of debate there shall be, followed by how those minutes shall be apportioned among Republicans and Democrats, and then you will hear debate begin.
And what will you hear? You will hear a succession of independent speeches consuming, finally, the allotted total debate time. You will not hear debate in a manner which you, yourself, are familiar with the term, in debates about a work strategy or retirement investing or choosing a college or university for your child to attend.
In any of those genuine debates, what would one party say to another if the one party posed an issue to, or asked a question of the other party, and the other party addressed a different issue or did not answer the question at all? Would you recognize that as debate from your personal experience?
You would not. But listen to your representatives debate the most critical issues of our day, affecting your lives and those of people around the globe - that is what they do. Everyday. On every issue. That is how our representatives debate. Those are the debating rules they have chosen for themselves, heretofore and now.
If those were the debating rules between husband and wife, among co-workers, among an army platoon on patrol - the result would be utter futility and failure.
So, I ask you: given that we are government of, by and for the people, were it up to you, is that the kind of debate - are those the rules of debate - which you would choose for your representatives in government?
And if that answer was no, then why has congressional debate continued that way for so long, and why haven't I done anything, and why haven't you?
Businesses reorganize and re-strategize ever with the aim of improving upon communication up, through and around the organization. Businesses understand their very competitiveness, livelihood and continuation depend on the right debate taking place, on lesser ideas being challenged and found wanting, on better ideas being challenged and found worthy. And it's why business is forever changing, and Congress stays ever implacably the same.
It's a big reason why Congress' approval rating is 28% and its disapproval rating 65%. And I ask again, why in a government of, by and for us do we allow debate in Congress that in no way resembles the manifestation of that word in our homes, our businesses or among ourselves? And why haven't you changed things, or tried, and why haven't I?
It's as critically important as representative government. We need to try. If we don't try, then we don't care, and we get a government which is of that, by that and for that. In short, we get the government we deserve, one which doesn't care about partaking of and applying the most effective communication and debate to the most pressing public policy issues of our day. And such are the policies we shall get, as a consequence.
And if you find yourself later critical of those policies, then I shall bring you back squarely to this issue, this question, and whether or not you did anything to change political debate, in Congress, and publically between candidates and politicians in any forum.
No matter how gluttonous devouring all the time, we need to breathe at this time, and strive to win our reputation, the sickle of time can not hurt us. - William Shakespeare
Posted by: air yeezy | November 13, 2010 at 03:57 AM