The downfall of respected political discourse In Canada (and here)

Scotty · October 18, 2015

I can remember when political discourse was a more congenial affair in Canada. That was true for both the politicians and for ordinary Canadians. There was more acceptance that two people could have roughly the same goal, but different opinions on how to go about reaching it. There was also more acceptance that two people could simply have different goals, more spirit of compromise and a lot better manners in public life

What brings this to mind is a column in today's G&M, which was a little shallow, but did provoke this topic.

Federal elections in Canada have become ugly affairs. The dirty tricks, the endless mudslinging, the deceitful propaganda – all designed to get your vote but just as likely to make you not want to vote.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/our-political-discourse-has-become-belligerent-cynical-and-un-canadian/article26855652/

In truth, the problem with even discussing this topic is that those on the Left will blame Conservatives, and Conservatives will blame those on the Left. I think I can safely say that almost no one has performed admirably in this election. No party has been completely honest and free of hypocritical and untrue claims about the others. No party has been above the targeting of voter segments at the expense of others.

But I'm not so much thinking of the election, but of political discourse in the country in general. It's become far more shrill, abrasive, accusatory, and hostile on all sides. The government of the day ignores everything said by opponents, even if sensible. Opponents engage in the political equivalent of 'gotcha journalism', looking for any little thing which can be blown up into a 'scandal'.

And that is reflected on this site, where intelligent discourse free of insults, sneers, innuendo and put-downs is quite rare. There seems to be very little tolerance for political viewpoints which contradict that of individual posters, and, as with politicians, a constant need to attack, attack, attack. And it's virtually impossible not to get drawn into it. When I first came on this site I was determined to above that sort of thing, but that seems largely impossible. You get drawn into it by the relentless poor behaviour of other posters intent on attacking and demonizing those who disagree with them.

I don't really have any idea how to repair this breech of polite and intelligent discourse. I don't see any politicians on the federal or provincial scene who seems likely to change things. The media loves abrasive, outrageous commentary, and we, the public, have become so used to it we accept it, and the accompanying lies as perfectly normal, and now reflect it ourselves sometimes when discussing politics with others.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Scotty

msj · October 18, 2015

I don't think humans have changed all that much in the past 150 years.

I doubt we've changed much in the past 1,000 years.

As for getting into insults: been there done that.

But don't blame others for getting "drawn into it."

We all can make the choice and we should choose more wisely.

Scotty · October 18, 2015

I don't think humans have changed all that much in the past 150 years.

I doubt we've changed much in the past 1,000 years.

As for getting into insults: been there done that.

But don't blame others for getting "drawn into it."

We all can make the choice and we should choose more wisely.

The type of dialogue we have as a community is defined by our values and our acceptance of what is and is not allowable. Politicians operate within those guidelines. But we, as a society have allowed our policing of that dialogue to broaden over the past quarter century to allow virtually any type of hostile, derogatory, inaccurate, dishonest attack on others. Politicians, being human, being given permission to use whatever style of dialogue they think will win them more votes, have become coarse, and taken advantage of this, to relentlessly attack each other rather than engaging in any kind of cooperative dialogue. What's worse, we, as a society have then in turn come to accept that sort of behaviour among ourselves, as well.

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

I suspect what is being referred to as 'dialogue' actually refers to online and mass-media exchanges.

There really isn't much political 'dialogue' in everyday life that I have seen.

ToadBrother · October 18, 2015

I don't really have any idea how to repair this breech of polite and intelligent discourse. I don't see any politicians on the federal or provincial scene who seems likely to change things. The media loves abrasive, outrageous commentary, and we, the public, have become so used to it we accept it, and the accompanying lies as perfectly normal, and now reflect it ourselves sometimes when discussing politics with others.

For me the problem boils down to a sort of apocalyptic thinking; that if anyone other than a commentator's or poster's preferred party is elected, the world will come to an end. It's not a new phenomenon, and certainly has been trotted out many times since Confederation, but honestly I can't recall the level of hyperbole as high as its been over the last fifteen years or so.

Part of it is the inherent fanaticism of the partisan. When someone adopts a party to support, or even a party to hate, that decision has significant consequences for how they view the world. It's rather like becoming an adherent of a religion. Combine that with a sense of impending doom if their party doesn't achieve victory, and you have a recipe for extreme hostility. I've seen it here, I've seen it elsewhere. Heck, I even saw the apocalyptic hyperbole at Thanksgiving dinner where a number of family members expressed extreme horror at the thought of a Tory victory, as if the gates of Hell were going to open up if the Conservatives eked out a win.

There's no doubt different parties, if they achieve power, are going to have some significant influence on some parts of our lives, but really, how much would any of the platforms muck us up? I even get caught up in it to the extent that I have a deep admiration of our system of government, and watching it erode in certain ways distresses me. But it's not as if I've been badly governed for the past decade.

And maybe that's the real problem. There have been darn few dark days in the last twenty years, so parties, and indeed the media, have had to manufacture impending doom. For the media, it's about the old formula that scandal and political intrigue sells. For the parties it's about motivating the base and terrifying swing voters. And when there's that much emotional energy involved, and that much artificial hysteria in the air, of course people are going to get hostile and angry, because OMG THOSE OTHER GUYS MIGHT WIN!!!!!!!

Scotty · October 18, 2015

I suspect what is being referred to as 'dialogue' actually refers to online and mass-media exchanges.

There really isn't much political 'dialogue' in everyday life that I have seen.

You don't talk politics with your friends and relatives? Maybe a lot of people are just so turned off that they're not interested. But when I talk with friends on politics I find they often have very harsh opinions of whatever party they don't support, mostly not based on any particular reason aside from that being the climate in which we live.

msj · October 18, 2015

The behaviour has always existed in some form or another. Humans having been going to war with each other for eternity so this idea that things were better in the past is nonsense.

We have new ways for more people to express themselves in anonymous ways.

Trolls can troll and haters are gonna hate. But they will do it online, seemingly everywhere and all the time.

Same as it ever was - we need to learn to filter the signal from the noise, ignore the troll behaviour, and engage the intelligent part of the discussion.

I do this by mostly ignoring the MSM, using heavy blocking in social media (StockTwits in particular - you have to block the peddlers there) while trying to seek out those who I can intelligently disagree with so as to ensure I'm not curating myself into my own uncritical ideology.

Edited October 18, 2015 by msj

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

Do your friends disagree amongst themselves though? Dialogue between like-minded people doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the OP

msj · October 18, 2015

Do your friends disagree amongst themselves though? Dialogue between like-minded people doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the OP

To some degree - yes.

Scotty · October 18, 2015

There's no doubt different parties, if they achieve power, are going to have some significant influence on some parts of our lives, but really, how much would any of the platforms muck us up?

That's the sort of question we ought to be able to discuss intelligently based on a reasonable person's analyses of proposed program and policy changes. But I find that many such topics seem to rouse people to even higher than normal degrees of hostility towards those who don't share the same views. This used to only be bad when discussing social policy. In Canada, the four subjects which can not be discussed with insults are: abortion, official bilingualism, gay rights, and immigration, with gay rights having replaced what used to be the fourth subject, the death penalty, largely because no one really talks about that one any more.

Added to those are now new subjects like global warming, which ought to be able to be discussed rationally since it's based on numbers, and government surveillance, which again ought to be able to be discussed rationally, but never is. We also seem to be developing an almost religious fixation on the Supreme Court so that anything they pronounce on becomes the word of God and can't be rejected on any rational or moral basis.

And maybe that's the real problem. There have been darn few dark days in the last twenty years, so parties, and indeed the media, have had to manufacture impending doom. For the media, it's about the old formula that scandal and political intrigue sells. For the parties it's about motivating the base and terrifying swing voters.

I agree with this. The 'scandals' I've witnessed on the federal scene over the past ten years have seemed relatively minor to me in comparison to what I've seen in the past, but the media, and a lot of people here seem to be shocked and outraged by them nevertheless. For motivating he base and terrifying swing voters, I think we can trace to the Liberal Rat Pack of the Mulroney days, who set about a deliberate policy of calling Mulroney a liar at every opportunity, even getting themselves thrown out of the House on numerous occasions for doing so. It wasn't that Mulroney was any more dishonest than his predecessor, but that they were deliberately seeking to disparage his name to voters by repeating something often (an old propaganda ploy). They have admitted as much since, by the way. It was a determined attempt to create doubt in swing voters who don't follow politics much, but would have heard screams of 'lies, liar' often on news summaries and sound bytes. I believe this was the real start of the downward slope in political dialogue.

Scotty · October 18, 2015

Do your friends disagree amongst themselves though? Dialogue between like-minded people doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the OP

My friends often disagree with me on certain political issues. There is no political issue which seems to make us emotional enough to yell at each other and call each other names, however. Perhaps being largely a self-selecting body, we tend to agree on most of the traditional social issues anyway. We don't agree on who to vote for, however.

ToadBrother · October 18, 2015

My friends often disagree with me on certain political issues. There is no political issue which seems to make us emotional enough to yell at each other and call each other names, however. Perhaps being largely a self-selecting body, we tend to agree on most of the traditional social issues anyway. We don't agree on who to vote for, however.

It's also because people debating face to face usually have some sense of decorum. When you remove the shackles through anonymity, some people will just become more outrageous.

kimmy · October 18, 2015

You don't talk politics with your friends and relatives? Maybe a lot of people are just so turned off that they're not interested. But when I talk with friends on politics I find they often have very harsh opinions of whatever party they don't support, mostly not based on any particular reason aside from that being the climate in which we live.

When I've discussed politics with co-workers it tends to be done in a rather guarded manner. People tend to chime in with their thoughts on some issue -- the controversy over niqabs, say-- and move along after a bit of friendly banter.

-k

cybercoma · October 18, 2015

For me the problem boils down to a sort of apocalyptic thinking; that if anyone other than a commentator's or poster's preferred party is elected, the world will come to an end. It's not a new phenomenon, and certainly has been trotted out many times since Confederation, but honestly I can't recall the level of hyperbole as high as its been over the last fifteen years or so.

I can't remember who said it, but I always liked the quote, "Things in politics are never as bad nor as good as they seem."

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

As I said I don't see a lot of real dialogue. Maybe it's as Kimmy describes it.

I feel that there must have been more forums for such discussion in the past.

GostHacked · October 18, 2015

As I said I don't see a lot of real dialogue. Maybe it's as Kimmy describes it.

I feel that there must have been more forums for such discussion in the past.

Many are controlled and possibly have partisan roots. I believe you are going to struggle to find a forum with members who are completely objective.

kimmy · October 18, 2015

For me the problem boils down to a sort of apocalyptic thinking; that if anyone other than a commentator's or poster's preferred party is elected, the world will come to an end. It's not a new phenomenon, and certainly has been trotted out many times since Confederation, but honestly I can't recall the level of hyperbole as high as its been over the last fifteen years or so.

(...)

There's no doubt different parties, if they achieve power, are going to have some significant influence on some parts of our lives, but really, how much would any of the platforms muck us up? I even get caught up in it to the extent that I have a deep admiration of our system of government, and watching it erode in certain ways distresses me. But it's not as if I've been badly governed for the past decade.

Those are key points... the amount of catastrophizing being done, on all sides, is out of control.

When the Martin regime was in its final days and the Conservatives were on the rise, the Liberal and NDP supporters were predicting all manner of terrible things if Harper became Prime Minister. The reality is, 10 years later, none of the horrible things they predicted came to pass. Overall, Steven Harper didn't turn out to be such a bad guy after all.

And we see the same today. The shoe is now on the other foot, as Conservative supporters catastrophize on how Trudeau or Mulcair would destroy the country as we know it. You know what? The country is going to be fine, regardless who wins. It's not like we're choosing between Aragorn vs Sauron. We're choosing between slightly different roadmaps to get to a destination that's pretty similar.

-k

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

Many are controlled and possibly have partisan roots. I believe you are going to struggle to find a forum with members who are completely objective.

No I was referring to a forum in the classical sense, not online.

Topaz · October 18, 2015

Kimmy, what do u consider "terrible things"? Raising the CPP age to 67, is a terrible thing for some Canadians and those people as Harper said can go on welfare until they are 67, so therefore, again Harper is downloading on the provinces. He also put a penalty to anyone getting CPP at 62, one loses 30% of CPP if they take it early.

ToadBrother · October 18, 2015

When I've discussed politics with co-workers it tends to be done in a rather guarded manner. People tend to chime in with their thoughts on some issue -- the controversy over niqabs, say-- and move along after a bit of friendly banter.

-k

I work with a lot of die-hard NDP supporters, so I tend to avoid political discussions. The most uncomfortable moment was when one my coworkers asked me when I was going to put the NDP sign up. I replied "about the same time as I put the Liberal and Tory signs up..." to which she responded, "Ah, so you're a Green supporter."

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

Yes, so when did politics turn into religion then?

Scotty · October 18, 2015

Kimmy, what do u consider "terrible things"? Raising the CPP age to 67, is a terrible thing for some Canadians and those people as Harper said can go on welfare until they are 67, so therefore, again Harper is downloading on the provinces. He also put a penalty to anyone getting CPP at 62, one loses 30% of CPP if they take it early.

But these were things which simply had to be done. There was no alternative with an aging population. We can't continue to have people working for forty years and then living off society for another forty or fifty. It's not like Harper did it because he hates old people and wanted to hurt them. This is where discourse falls apart. When we suggest a policy chosen is done out of some sort of mean-spirited or evil intent.

Scotty · October 18, 2015

Yes, so when did politics turn into religion then?

When some people decided that rational decisions must contain a moral dimension.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Scotty

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2015

Actually morality was always part of politics. What changed?

Scotty · October 18, 2015

Actually morality was always part of politics. What changed?

I'm not speaking of personal morality. I'm speaking of attaching a moral rider to every policy or bill so that if you support it you're 'good' and if you oppose it you're 'bad'. And this regardless of whether the policy or program or bill is social or economic in nature. For example, almost any tax change or economic policy will help some at the expense of others. But sometimes, oftentimes, this can't be helped. As an example, as someone recently pointed out, the age of pension eligibility for cpp being pushed back.