How to overcome ideological prejudice in our arguments?

[eyeball]

To constitute an assembly for each and every issue that comes up would be fantastically expensive. Such assemblies are best used for major questions, like electoral change, or constitutional change.

I wouldn't use them for each and every issue, but I can certainly see putting at least a handful of major questions to a couple of random assemblies per election cycle.

As long as it had a very limited scope and a short duration. But I still fail to see how we would get much general value out of it. LIke I said above, these sorts of assemblies have their uses, but as drivers of policy, well, you're just making them into another form of legislature.

Perhaps, but it would be one that is not so beholden to lobbyists, media, partisan interests and hopefully, ideological prejudice.

What does that have to do with anything? You make a silly statement about party's ruining parliament, which is prima facia evidence of extreme naivety, if not outright ignorance, and when you get called on it, you get all huffy. It's not my fault your knowledge of the history of Parliament is so woefully inadequate.

What do your personal feelings have to do with my statements? I don't know.

You might be right though, perhaps I was wrong about Parliament - its incivility could simply stem from our parties having been hijacked by so many ass-holes.

[ToadBrother]

I wouldn't use them for each and every issue, but I can certainly see putting at least a handful of major questions to a couple of random assemblies per election cycle.

As I said, this is expensive, and I think resources would be better spent on reforming the legislature.

Perhaps, but it would be one that is not so beholden to lobbyists, media, partisan interests and hopefully, ideological prejudice.

If such assemblies became common place, how is it that you propose they would not be the objects of partisan interest, lobbyists, media, etc.? The only reason these things tend to work is that they are sufficiently rare. Make them common place, and they will come under such kinds of scrutiny.

What do your personal feelings have to do with my statements? I don't know.

Would you prefer I sugar coat these things to spare your feelings?

You might be right though, perhaps I was wrong about Parliament - its incivility could simply stem from our parties having been hijacked by so many ass-holes.

You need to really read up on Parliament. It's always been a place where insults were traded during debate. That's its nature. Parties evolved in Parliament, not the other way around.

I see no point to citizens assemblies as a regular facet of our democracy. The kind of money involved could better be spent elsewhere.

[eyeball]

You need to really read up on Parliament. It's always been a place where insults were traded during debate. That's its nature. Parties evolved in Parliament, not the other way around.

I see no point to citizens assemblies as a regular facet of our democracy. The kind of money involved could better be spent elsewhere.

I guess I'd probably have to agree if I thought they would be no better than what we've got.

Perhaps overcoming ideological or even personal prejudice in our arguments is a waste of time and maybe even inappropriate in a Parliament. If that's the case, bring on the Brat/Frat packs...just don't be surprised if even more people pass on paying attention let alone participate.

I don't need to read up on Parliament thanks, I've seen the reviews.

[Wild Bill]

I guess I'd probably have to agree if I thought they would be no better than what we've got.

Perhaps overcoming ideological or even personal prejudice in our arguments is a waste of time and maybe even inappropriate in a Parliament. If that's the case, bring on the Brat/Frat packs...just don't be surprised if even more people pass on paying attention let alone participate.

I don't need to read up on Parliament thanks, I've seen the reviews.

You don't seem to be getting a clear answer to your question, Eyeball. I'll give it a try, at least as far as why discussion boards can be far less civil than face to face debate.

I think it has to do with having a captive audience. Some folks are just naturally uncivil and rude personalities. In real life they have to temper their acid natures or no one will deal with them! If someone doesn't like your manner they can simply ignore you, leave or maybe whallop you one upside your head!

In a discussion board members are loath to walk away for the sake of just one or two louts. If you enjoy such discussion that's the price you have to pay. Depending on the moderators, any board will seek a certain level of civility. It's up to the individual member to decide if the price to participate is too high or not. That's why some folks like myself have no respect for boards like "rubble.com" and choose MLW instead.

Courtesy and manners are social mechanisms to help keep us from thumping each other and ensuring a reasonable level of cooperation in society. A faceless discussion board can allow some personalities to ignore all that and let their true nature shine through.

We saw a similar social phenomenon in the late 70's with the CB radio craze. Anyone who listened at that time heard what was essentially lawless bedlam. Why? Because users COULD behave that way, with impunity!

"Ignore" buttons help but only to a certain degree. Perhaps they need to be used by more members. Rude people tend to fade away when left alone.

As boards go, MLW is definitely on of the more civilized examples. I appreciate the work of the moderators and don't envy their jobs at all.

[Shwa]

I think it has to do with having a captive audience.

Yeah, I agree and it kind of fits in with what MH has been saying about forums such as this "provides us with a way to elevate our abilities to discuss issues collectively."

There are some hyperbolic ideologues for sure, but they are everywhere. I think most may initially come across as an ideologue, but over time, as they test their ideas, they will tend to mellow and be a little more flexible in their views. I think the portion of those that have totally invested themselves in a position that is immune to the force of reason or logic is very small.

If you enjoy such discussion that's the price you have to pay.

There are other benefits too. By keeping personalities - more or less - anonymous, we are exposed to - or can express those - views that otherwise would not be brought up in public discourse, but frequently make limited, private conversation. I think it is a good thing for people to be able to bring up those things for a discussion in a public forum without reprisals from the thought police.

I think the mods do a good job here of allowing a wide breadth of opinion and I think it is a very good thing that they don't limit those prejudices, but allow them to be discussed freely.

[Michael Hardner]

Their viewpoints can be as different as night and day, and they can still share their ideas without having to be confrontational about it.

What's the difference between argument, discussion, and confrontation ?

I think what you're not seeing is that civil disagreement, dialectic, and discussion creates good hybrid solutions, and compromises that are acceptable to all sides.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing that strikes me about forums such as MLW, is that they're far better suited to our style of democracy than other media such as television - which is a primary source of political information for many people.

Eventually, though, television will wither and be replaced by the web as a primary source of information. As such, there will inevitably be new political institutions that are based on the web.

In my opinion, this is a good thing.

I'd also like to see the web used for something more than a discussion tool: for monitoring the delivery of government services. After all, providing something for us and parliamentarians to talk about is only one of the functions of government (call it the role of politics to provide entertainment) - there are still essential services that need to be provided, and people haven't yet realized the potential that the web has to hold our servants (The Prime Minister and the Premiers) to a standard for providing us the services that we pay for.

[Machjo]

Parliament has never existed without parties of one kind or another. Admittedly the modern party machine didn't arrive until the final decades of the 18th century, but if you imagine at any point in the last five or six hundred years that Parliament wasn't split between factions, whether ideological or practical, then you're more naive then I imagined.

But minus established political parties, these factions comprising indepoendent MPs were likely more fluid too, with MPs willing to form new co-alitions on a bill by bill basis depending on how well an MP could argue his point, rather than just dogmatically support the party right or wrong.

[Machjo]

What's the difference between argument, discussion, and confrontation ?

Look it up in a dictionary.

I think what you're not seeing is that civil disagreement, dialectic, and discussion creates good hybrid solutions, and compromises that are acceptable to all sides.

Sure, if it's an open consultation and sharing of ideas and not each group just trying to prove it's right and the other's wrong.

[ToadBrother]

But minus established political parties, these factions comprising indepoendent MPs were likely more fluid too, with MPs willing to form new co-alitions on a bill by bill basis depending on how well an MP could argue his point, rather than just dogmatically support the party right or wrong.

There were structural differences to Parliament prior to the 18th century which make direct comparisons much harder to make. There were individuals, like Cromwell, who effectively held that position, but I would hardly call the Rump Parliament a model Parliament. The real transformation came with the evolution of the office of Prime Minister as a permanent head of government. Once you had that, then you saw the party machinery come into place. But you're right, things were much more fluid in the pre-modern Parliament, alliances coming and going. Still, it was not a place known for decorum at any point in its history. Usually the behavior of Parliament has been heavily dependent on the Speaker. Some Speakers have been more tolerant of buffoonery, rudeness and a general lack of decorum, while others have been much more stern in their approach.

The fact is, and no matter how you constitute it, when you get people of strong opinions in a room together, you're going to see fireworks eventually.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, if it's an open consultation and sharing of ideas and not each group just trying to prove it's right and the other's wrong.

I think part of the problem here is our perception of Parliament, largely colored by the media. To be sure the current parliament has been pretty divisive, but all in all, what we usually see is Question Period and the Scrum, which are both pretty explicit political theater. A lot of the work that goes on in Committee sees MPs working together fairly effectively regardless of party affiliation. But committee work is dull stuff, and save for the odd time when there is some sort of fireworks, the media doesn't show that, being more interested in giving us the latest Commons brawl during QP.

[eyeball]

I think part of the problem here is our perception of Parliament, largely colored by the media. To be sure the current parliament has been pretty divisive, but all in all, what we usually see is Question Period and the Scrum, which are both pretty explicit political theater. A lot of the work that goes on in Committee sees MPs working together fairly effectively regardless of party affiliation. But committee work is dull stuff, and save for the odd time when there is some sort of fireworks, the media doesn't show that, being more interested in giving us the latest Commons brawl during QP.

The real problem is that the government from the PMO down is simply not credible to or trusted by millions of Canadians. This is not the fault of ordinary Canadians. The rift between the governed and the government is wide and deep and is only growing wider. In lieu of no rigorous public oversight and monitoring of the decision making process the public should be incorporated into it more often and to a greater extent. This is what the Internet could be doing for us.

In the meantime what it is that a representative committee of MP's and a representative assembly of citizens do is virtually identical. The committee/assembly attended by advisers and experts hammer out a piece of legislation or question that is put to a vote/referendum. I simply think the assembly/referendum system of governance would be more trusted and participated in than our present degenerating system is. Electoral reforms are only part of the equation we also need governance reforms.

As for the cost, like anything else that smacks of change there will always be doomsayers that claim ruination and destruction lest we do. That said resisting change at all costs will probably result in the same. So we should try something in the middle, a mix of the old with a healthy dose of the new. So far I'd say the incrementalist approach we've taken towards democratic reforms is about on par for a system designed for a horse and buggy society.

[Michael Hardner]

The real problem is that the government from the PMO down is simply not credible to or trusted by millions of Canadians. This is not the fault of ordinary Canadians. The rift between the governed and the government is wide and deep and is only growing wider. In lieu of no rigorous public oversight and monitoring of the decision making process the public should be incorporated into it more often and to a greater extent. This is what the Internet could be doing for us.

Monitoring of results is something that could be done a lot more easily than monitoring of process.

As for the cost, like anything else that smacks of change there will always be doomsayers that claim ruination and destruction lest we do. That said resisting change at all costs will probably result in the same. So we should try something in the middle, a mix of the old with a healthy dose of the new. So far I'd say the incrementalist approach we've taken towards democratic reforms is about on par for a system designed for a horse and buggy society.

The system was designed in the times of ancient Greece and revived in the 18th century. The argument that the system is old is completely ridiculous. On that basis, we should get rid of money which is much older, and maybe adopt the system of Communist dictatorship that China is using - very modern indeed.

[eyeball]

Monitoring of results is something that could be done a lot more easily than monitoring of process.

Okay so its back to an issue of cost. I suggest the cost of not having adequate institutions of accountability are potentially astronomical in real dollar terms not to mention the erosion of our social fabric and the growing incivility and entrenchment of ideological prejudice that official secrecy only seems to exacerbate.

The system was designed in the times of ancient Greece and revived in the 18th century. The argument that the system is old is completely ridiculous. On that basis, we should get rid of money which is much older, and maybe adopt the system of Communist dictatorship that China is using - very modern indeed.

I didn't say get rid of it, and how modern of you to play the old communist fear card. That's really not like you at all.

I think I would have been happier in ancient Greece. Surely it must have been more exciting living in a time of such heady change. By the way what on Earth did the old guard in Greece use in lieu of terms like communist when injecting their ideological prejudices into their arguments, barbarians?

Edited December 21, 2009 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

[H]ow modern of you to play the old communist fear card.

And what is it when you invoke the straw man technique? He didn't mention communism to summon fear; he did so to illustrate that what's contemporary isn't necessarily good, contrary to your insinuation.

[punct]

Edited December 21, 2009 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

Okay so its back to an issue of cost. I suggest the cost of not having adequate institutions of accountability are potentially astronomical in real dollar terms not to mention the erosion of our social fabric and the growing incivility and entrenchment of ideological prejudice that official secrecy only seems to exacerbate.

Depending on how you frame it, yes. And cost could mean impossible cost, i.e. impossibly expensive.

Your 'potentially astronomical' costs are being paid right now, so they're not astronomical.

I didn't say get rid of it, and how modern of you to play the old communist fear card. That's really not like you at all.

The PR suggestions are enough of a reworking of our system to qualify as getting rid of the old system.

I think I would have been happier in ancient Greece. Surely it must have been more exciting living in a time of such heady change. By the way what on Earth did the old guard in Greece use in lieu of terms like communist when injecting their ideological prejudices into their arguments, barbarians?

They didn't have wide democracy as we do, so there may have not been a need to manipulate things.

[eyeball]

And what is it when you invoke the straw man technique? He didn't mention communism to summon fear; he did so to illustrate that what's contemporary isn't necessarily good, contrary to your insinuation.

[punct]

I guess I was trying to overcome something else and missed.

Needless to say I get the message that its completely ridiculous to expect any sort of meaningful democratic reforms in Canada. The point of even arguing for them has been clearly made.

[g_bambino]

Needless to say I get the message that its completely ridiculous to expect any sort of meaningful democratic reforms in Canada.

Meaningful according to whom? Perhaps you need to revisit the OP of this thread and consider if you have a certain immovable ideological prejudice.

[eyeball]

Meaningful according to whom?

In respect to what we have now I suppose, which would be in the eye of the beholder. For what its worth, where some people seemed to think the idea of fixed terms was downright exhilarating I figured watching paint dry would be more exciting.

[ToadBrother]

They didn't have wide democracy as we do, so there may have not been a need to manipulate things.

Look up Socrates. The Athenian democracy was hardly perfect. It is, in fact, an awfully good argument for not invoking a true full democracy, but instead working through a representative democracy.

Edited December 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Meaningful according to whom? Perhaps you need to revisit the OP of this thread and consider if you have a certain immovable ideological prejudice.

I think it's almost guaranteed that he has an ideological prejudice, and a rather extreme one at that. So bad, in fact, that he suggests we replace the current system of elected representatives with representatives selected by lottery!

[eyeball]

I think it's almost guaranteed that he has an ideological prejudice, and a rather extreme one at that.

Its true, but not in a way you might think. I believe the governed and the governors, in most societies around the planet, are at odds with one another to enough of an extent they are effectively polarized. I think the culture of secrecy in governments that is pretty much universal around the world, is a consistent hallmark of an ideological prejudice that people who govern possess. The prejudices of the governed are likewise reflected in their mistrust of governments.

Is my prejudice extreme? Only in here perhaps, but not in the real world. I've been a volunteer participant in local governance for decades. I've long associated with people who have run for and been elected to office and I've met with and worked alongside various federal and provincial officials over the years. These people are not monsters and I'm not tempted to attend a meeting of them with a bomb strapped to my body or anything. I just don't entirely trust them is all and I am not under any illusion about their level of trust towards me. I've had the job of governing other people too so I do have some insights into how this polarization can develop and deepen from both perspectives. If and when push come to shove between these two it can result in anything from social/economic (left/right?) dysfunction to violence in some cases.

So bad, in fact, that he suggests we replace the current system of elected representatives with representatives selected by lottery!

I don't think we should replace our system as much as augment it with electoral reforms i.e. jury-like assemblies and referenda and we definitely need more rigorous institutions of accountability. I think another measure of just how prejudiced governments have become towards the governed is in the sheer amount of surveillance that is directed at the governed. There is a real imbalance here that is only made worse by the increased secrecy that seems to characterize our government. Why do they need to know more about us than they are willing to reveal about themselves?

One thing I'd like to see is a Secrecy Commissioner, someone who decides what it is that should be kept secret as opposed to private - privacy is far too often just a jaded euphemism for secrecy it seems.

I admit I've offered some rather extreme suggestions on how to monitor public officials in the past but I think I've also trended towards more moderate views. Given the clear lack of enthusiasm most people around here for even minor changes like fixed election dates or mandatory voting (which other countries do) I guess I can see how I'd still seem a tad extreme.

I have to say though, my observation has been that people on both the left and right have demonstrated support and disagreement with my views on reforming how we should govern ourselves. That confirms my sense that there really is a deeper more fundamental polarity dividing society than the economic/social one we are most familiar with. People don't always automatically default to a lefty righty position on the question of more accountability or greater democratic participation, that's a good thing, it means there's still hope.

Edited December 22, 2009 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Its true, but not in a way you might think. I believe the governed and the governors, in most societies around the planet, are at odds with one another to enough of an extent they are effectively polarized. I think the culture of secrecy in governments that is pretty much universal around the world, is a consistent hallmark of an ideological prejudice that people who govern possess. The prejudices of the governed are likewise reflected in their mistrust of governments.

So whole precisely would hold the power? Could Parliament reject an Assembly's recommendations. If an Assembly's recommendations are binding, then how is it not a legislature populated by lottery winners?

[eyeball]

So whole precisely would hold the power?

Who? Whoever was elected to hold it. I could continue to live with a monarchy although I'd like to see a more effective one sometimes, in as much as it can help keep the government honest and protect people from an abuse of power.

Ultimately though, the people should control that power.

Could Parliament reject an Assembly's recommendations.

Sometimes maybe, and maybe this could also be a two way street sometimes.

If an Assembly's recommendations are binding, then how is it not a legislature populated by lottery winners?

Why is this such a horrifying concept? Do you get this freaked out at the thought of how a jury is selected? The idea is to simply have as impartial and unbiased a decision making body as possible when circumstances indicate a real need for a non-partisan decision. I'm a real hard sell on the romantic notion that once elected a representative represents ALL of their constituents.

By the way I liked your suggestion that assemblies should be reserved for major questions. Obviously there are differences between what we think constitute major questions...which might be a separate subject for a special assembly to determine - who or what should trigger an assembly?

Edited December 23, 2009 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Who? Whoever was elected to hold it. I could continue to live with a monarchy although I'd like to see a more effective one sometimes, in as much as it can help keep the government honest and protect people from an abuse of power.

I'm beginning to think you don't really like democracy all that much.

Ultimately though, the people should control that power.

But they do. Our constitution guarantees an election in the Commons at most every five years (pointless term limiting legislation not withstanding).

Sometimes maybe, and maybe this could also be a two way street sometimes.

Generally, as one debates a person about their proposals, those ideas tend to become clearer and more concrete. With you, it's the opposite. Things become murkier as we progress.

Why is this such a horrifying concept? Do you get this freaked out at the thought of how a jury is selected?

A jury is still restrained by the law and by the judge, and ultimately, if necessary, by appeal.

The idea is to simply have as impartial and unbiased a decision making body as possible when circumstances indicate a real need for a non-partisan decision. I'm a real hard sell on the romantic notion that once elected a representative represents ALL of their constituents.

And you haven't sold me on the idea of a legislature-by-lottery-winners is going to deliver a more egalitarian, less politicized body.

By the way I liked your suggestion that assemblies should be reserved for major questions. Obviously there are differences between what we think constitute major questions...which might be a separate subject for a special assembly to determine - who or what should trigger an assembly?

My idea of a major question is a constitutional change or a major electoral overhaul, not on whether a few thousand soldiers stay in Afghanistan until or beyond 2011. But even Citizens Assemblies in cases of constitutional change must be informed and guided to some degree by leader scholars. In the case of a constitutional change, what I would rather see is a *Constitutional Assembly*, made up of leading experts on constitutional law, that ultimately would come up with recommendations that could either be sold as a package at a referendum or could be passed on to a Citizens Assembly.