The Degradation of Political Debate

[Big Guy]

The level of animosity between political observers has never been greater. Political debate has deteriorated to personal attacks and palpable hate from some towards people they have never met.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/17/michael-den-tandt-vile-reactions-to-justin-trudeau-break-in-a-symptom-of-the-degradation-of-political-debate/

When anyone publishes any hint of support for a political position, the lay person political surrogates who disagree, reply in ever escalating over-the-top dialogue which in most cases deteriorates into personal attacks.

What once was a forum of civilized discussion and debate on issues has become a pit of mud-slinging, finger pointing and insults.

Some argue that this is the inevitable result of political parties using attack ads that tend to focus on personalities rather than issues. The surrogates then pick up on the process and escalate depending on the limits of the venue and forum.

Others feel that the issues have become so passionate and communications so extended that emotion has overshadowed civility and listening.

What has happened to civilized political discourse?

What has caused this condition?

Is it irreversible?

[eyeball]

What has happened to civilized political discourse?

What discourse?

What has caused this condition?

Right-wingism.

Is it irreversible?

No, it's a process of social evolution. Give it another 50,000 or so years.

[GostHacked]

Various forms of media and now social media are contributing to that divide and animosity. Most media outlets that give us news are always looking for the divide and conquer story. With dividing the people on any given story, the process also includes pitting each side against each other. Media has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Resulting in horribly written articles that can be very partisan and very obfuscating. Sometimes downright misleading.

With the introduction of Twitter we have the news dumded down even more with a nice use of a hashtag. So in many cases we are not given the proper facts in the proper context.

Social media like Facebook has been beneficial and detrimental to news and the divide/conquer tactic. But all we need to do is read the comments to see how it quickly degenerates into the 'NO YOU', arguments.

Another thing is, that we humans, just love to argue. But I agree it crosses the line when the person is attacked and not the message. IN some cases it is hard to remove the message from the person, if they keep towing it. So then it may be ok to attack a person directly instead of the message.

The reason is that we are easily manipulated. We have all become Pavlov Dogs, because there is at least one thing that will make you salivate. Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition.

Lines like 'you are with us or with the terrorists' is a perfect example of our leaders perpetuating that mentality through the mouthpiece media organizations. Most of them run the same article at the same time. Where are they getting their feeds from? Is there some organization via the media to present some homogeneous portrayal of our country?

I keep hearing 'come together', but I keep seeing bombs and bullets.

It's not an easy thing to answer Big Guy.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Right-wingism.

Poor dears...can't handle the American media technology that they voluntarily use. "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards".

[GostHacked]

Big Guy, it took 3 replies to show your exact concerns regarding debating tactics.

[Bonam]

Is there any evidence that political debate was more civil, more meaningful, more rational, etc, in the "good old days"? Without such evidence, I think this thread is merely an example of rosy retrospection fallacy.

[Shady]

Actually, 1 reply. Right-wingism! Whatever that means. Anyways, this topic is much ado about nothing. Political debate has always been this way, and even worse in the past. It only seems like the opposite when history isn't examined.

[Shady]

Is there any evidence that political debate was more civil, more meaningful, more rational, etc, in the "good old days"? Without such evidence, I think this thread is merely an example of rosy retrospection fallacy.

Nope. You're exactly right. It was actually much worse.

[eyeball]

Is twitter and other social media really that big a deal? This forum is about as far as I've gone in terms of social media.

In any case I think the media's worst effect on this is that it often gives gives equal weight to opposing sides on so-called politically charged issues even when one side's expert evidence for it's position is so small and so disregarded by vast vast majorities of experts as to be ridiculous. Debate justy seems impossible in that sort of environment.

[GostHacked]

Is there any evidence that political debate was more civil, more meaningful, more rational, etc, in the "good old days"? Without such evidence, I think this thread is merely an example of rosy retrospection fallacy.

We have too many Bill O'Reily's on the air spewing idiocy, which many lap up. That was not so present some decades ago. There might have been a couple, but that number is quite large these days.

[GostHacked]

Actually, 1 reply. Right-wingism! Whatever that means. Anyways, this topic is much ado about nothing. Political debate has always been this way, and even worse in the past. It only seems like the opposite when history isn't examined.

Some here don't even like to examine history or facts presented. Blaming Obama for the failures of the Bush is evidence of what you speak of.

[bush_cheney2004]

See what I mean...it doesn't take long for the American narrative to surface in Canadian topics.

[eyeball]

Right-wingism! Whatever that means.

Apparently it's a genetic defect where a person is born with two right-arms and no left arm.

In our case, it's where we are in terms of our social/economic development. We're not in a place, the right-wing is not a point on a graph, we're on a trajectory. You should be happy as we've been plunging headlong this way for decades now but...as I've said in similar threads over the years, the journey in this direction is forever just getting underway, there's no end in sight and we'll never be rightward enough.

[GostHacked]

See what I mean...it doesn't take long for the American narrative to surface in Canadian topics.

What is the American narrative you were trying to initiate in this thread?

[PIK]

Any debate I saw with harper against his foes, harper was always polite while the others were just flinging mud. That 1st debate where they allowed Ms May, she was as rude as they come.

[overthere]

These are the golden days of political discourse.

Unless you prefer an era of outright coercion of a largely uninformed and often illiterate electorate, cracked heads and the outright purchase of votes with threats or whiskey.

[Big Guy]

I think that the televising of debate in the commons is one of the major causes. The job of any opposition is to question any initiative of the ruling party. Their role is to act as the "devils advocate" to present potential problems with ANY legislation whether they support it or not. The people in parliament are well educated individuals and quite capable of witticisms to take a dig at the opposing party or to elicit some humour. Many presentations in the commons in the past proved to be literary gems. The British parliament in the old days had the presence of accomplished orators like Winston Churchill.

What many viewers do not understand , that a member of the opposition may rip into a member of the government on the floor and then join him/her for a pleasant dinner afterwards.

The self appointed media (local and social) surrogates seem to believe that there is real animosity between the two and carry the hate torch into local media. They do not understand that most of what they see is really Kabuki theatre with everybody playing their designated roles. While there very well may be personal animosity between certain members, generally, they respect each other and act very civility towards each other outside the debate chamber.

They understand that the vast majority of people running for and in office are dedicated, intelligent and well educated individuals who give up lucrative careers in private business to try to represent their public. I believe that they are all very well meaning individuals who have different visions of how our society is to be organized and feel an obligation and the mandate to make changes towards that goal.

To disagree with them is our right and duty. To vilify them is to ignore the basic tenant of democracy - to respect your opponents and the wishes of those who Canadians who sent them there.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Big Guy

[Shady]

We have too many Bill O'Reily's on the air spewing idiocy, which many lap up. That was not so present some decades ago. There might have been a couple, but that number is quite large these days.

What idiocy? Like 911 trutherism?

[Argus]

Any debate I saw with harper against his foes, harper was always polite while the others were just flinging mud. That 1st debate where they allowed Ms May, she was as rude as they come.

Go back even further, to when the Reform Party first began to make inroads and arrived in Ottawa in force. The other parties were absolutely scathing and contemptuous in their commentary, as was much of the media. And that never changed even as the party morphed and moved to the middle. This assumed its lowest point, I think, over the issue of Quebec separatism, where the Liberals basically called them traitors to Canada. Notably, they never ever used such words to describe Quebec separatists.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is one of my favorites:

In the Canadian federal election, candidate Stephanie Dion was shown being pooped on by an animated puffin.

...While on a visit to the Atlantic province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Ignatieff suggested that puffins, which are found there, would be an apt symbol for the Liberal Party. While listing the attributes of puffins, he noted that “they hide their excrement.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15puffin.html?_r=0

Edited August 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[The_Squid]

See what I mean...it doesn't take long for the American narrative to surface in Canadian topics.

Aren't you the one that mentioned America?

Lol. What a troll.

[On Guard for Thee]

We have too many Bill O'Reily's on the air spewing idiocy, which many lap up. That was not so present some decades ago. There might have been a couple, but that number is quite large these days.

And if you think O'Rielly is bad give Limbaugh a little listen.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's nice to read that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have such a large Canadian audience.

[waldo]

What is the American narrative you were trying to initiate in this thread?

twas post #4 in this thread... right out of the blue the guy drops this:

Poor dears...can't handle the American media technology that they voluntarily use. "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards".

Edited August 18, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

Aren't you the one that mentioned America?

Lol. What a troll.

yes... again, twas post #4 in this thread - as follows, a completely unrelated post to anything prior. And then the guy proceeds to claim "the American narrative surfaced"! Yup, sure did!

Poor dears...can't handle the American media technology that they voluntarily use. "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards".

Edited August 18, 2014 by waldo