Let’s plot a path to reasoned political discourse

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Mike RobinsonWhat’s bugging Bubba, and the old school, Republican and Conservative base in the U.S. and Canada?

A superb Ryan Lizza article in the Dec. 14, 2015, New Yorker hits the nail on the head. The piece focuses on the radical Republicans in the U.S. Congress, and their relentless push of the far right political agenda. It speculates on why the spiralling resentments continue to vex the American right, and why they seem to be building in both number and amplitude.

Lizza writes that Devin Nunes, a moderate Republican Congressman from California, appears to offer the best rationale: “The rise of online media outlets and for-profit groups that spread what he views as bad, sometime false information, which House members feel obliged to address.”

Nunes, chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, traces the phenomenon back to 2002, when he first arrived in Congress. That date is pretty close to the mass onset of online news media, and the appearance of comment threads following each article.

As we now know, these threads have spawned huge volumes of anonymous commentary, ranging from the thoughtful to the thoughtless, and encompassing everything in between. Many have been closed by opinion editors as a result of libel and slander concerns, and a generally viciousness of tone. Gone are the days of thoughtful, genteel, edited letters to the editor. Online commentary is now the virtual Old West

Nunes notes that when he first entered Congress, he spent 90 per cent of his constituent response time on replies to thoughtful letters and e-mail that actually demonstrated rational analysis. Constituents attended study sessions on bills before the House, and based their critical views and suggestions for legislative betterment on the actual legislation.

In the early 2000s, “Ten per cent (of the constituency mail) were about ‘Chemtrails from airplanes are poisoning me’ to every other conspiracy theory that’s out there. And that has essentially flipped on its head.” The majority of constituency mail is now, “about the far out ideas.”

Consequently, many politicians spend the majority of their constituency time responding to what are being characterized as low information voters – people who get the majority of their information, not from due diligence and rational study, but from bloggers with axes to grind and false information to spread.

To be fair, both wings of the political spectrum engage in this deceit, and neither has a total stranglehold on the truth. But overall – the truth is suffering.

So what’s to be done? Many old and new media outlets are now shutting down the anonymous comment threads, and requiring writers to identify themselves by name as well as address. In this process, reviewed, edited and (hopefully) thoughtful letters and comments will re-establish their primacy in some parts of the online universe. But what of the letters and e-mails to elected representatives, and the disproportionate amount of time spent in their collective response?

The misinformation tiger is already loose amongst the low information voters, and it will be harder to recapture in their cases.

I think it is incumbent on our politicians to lead by example. Responses to constituents’ questions should favour those that are based on reason, and rooted in evidence. Questions that clearly come from a field of bias, misinformation, or irrationality should be so declared. Everyone should understand that the return to reasoned political discourse will take time.

For their part, citizens should hold their representatives accountable for reasoned debate, featuring the marshalling of undisputed facts, the clear delineation of issues, and the careful offering of plausible resolutions. In this process, the scientific method and peer review have strong roles to play.

Citizens who offer themselves for public office should have a duty to demonstrate that their prior careers built relevant skills for dealing with the problems of the commons. Increasingly, they will also have a duty to demonstrate that they understand the problems of the horizon, like climate change, that require analysis and action over a generation(s) of political service.

All parts of the political spectrum have a direct incentive to act: millennials and minorities are the reason. There is building evidence that they will determine the winning electoral math over the next decade.

They have reason to do so – they will increasingly be living in the world that is the legacy of today’s decisions. Take notice, Bubba.

Mike Robinson has been CEO of three Canadian NGOs: the Arctic Institute of North America, the Glenbow Museum and the Bill Reid Gallery. Mike has chaired the national boards of Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. In 2004, he became a Member of the Order of Canada.

© Troy Media


political discourse

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

By Mike Robinson

Mike Robinson’s career combined his academic training in Law and Anthropology at UBC and Oxford University, in frontier regulatory compliance work at Petro-Canada and PolarGas, and the leadership of three national NGOs: The Arctic Institute of North America, The Glenbow Alberta Institute, and The Bill Reid Gallery of Northwest Coast Art. In addition, he has chaired the national boards of Friends of the Earth, The David Suzuki Foundation, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. In 2004 he became a Member of the Order of Canada.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This