Political Civility Ain’t a Bad Idea
I don’t know how many of you out there were able to catch Obama’s Q-A session with House GOP members on Friday. I just watched it after reading up about it at James Fallows blog over at The Atlantic. I don’t want to comment about anything specifically mentioned during the session, but I do want to point out that this is one of the more professional and civilized political discussions I’ve seen in my lifetime that involves a spokesperson of one party (in this case a liberal president) talking with a whole host of opposition party members (in this instance all of the GOP House members). What I found most encouraging was the relative lack of political catch phrases, pointless sound bites, and unconstructive bitterness and nay-saying. The discussion was, contrary to my expectations, a professional exchange between the President and GOP members of the House.
Events like these ought to be arranged more often – much more often. It’s helpful when politicians are able to dialogue directly in an organized manner. I haven’t read much analysis about the session, but it seems to have went as smoothly and constructively as these things can go. I think open discussions like these could really serve as a medium to restructuring somewhat positive and productive dialogues between Democrats and Republicans at a time when it is needed more than ever. But, don’t take my word for it. Watch it for yourself. I’ve posted a video of the session below.
On a separate but not totally unrelated note, I think Obama’s session with House Republicans lays to rest the myth that Obama cannot deliver a public speech without the aid of a teleprompter or a written transcript. The discussions reflects Obama’s talent for public speaking. He is a bona fide orator and worthy of “great communicator” status. Throughout the speech Obama remained cool, calm, and collected. His answers were substantive yet delivered in plain language (at least as much as he could do given the subject matter of the questions). He defended his administration’s policy initiatives and his personal reputation candidly and in a non-defensive manner. He also stayed away from making inflaming comments about the Republicans and was sure to equally distribute the blame to both parties for certain political failures, when applicable. Obama’s performance reminded me of all the good qualities I liked in him as a presidential candidate. It also reminded me that Republicans have the capacity to be rational, non-vitriolic politicians; I suppose it’s a fundamentally different situation when you’re talking to the president one-on-one and not spitting sound bites and political one-liners for Fox and Friends or the local tea-party cult gathering.
People always lament the fact that America doesn’t have an equivalent to British Parliament’s “Question Time.” Well, this could be one quite the “worthy counterpart,” as Fallows put it.
Too bad most people would probably consider this boring and would rather go watch political hate/fear/dread-mongers like Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly. Hurray sensationalism.
Wow, that was very good. I was very pleased and surprised. Thanks for posting!
Your reply seems like a scripted troll mass-reply.
Haha, I will have more to write later. I just had to get something quick and didn’t want you to feel abandoned here.
There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about more on this topic. First, where have these GOP reps been and how can they act so differently in different contexts? The way this dialog went on was a far cry from “you lie!” and a lot of the other bull that has been spewed in the chamber itself. What factors make the dialog a constructive one sometimes and a terrible one at others? Ultimately, it would be nice to recognize the incentives at work and try to increase the level overall.
Second, I’m not sure how I feel about question time. I love watching it and I used to love the idea, but I’m not sure if it would fit in with our presidential system. I like having the president as a completely separate institution, on par with the entire congress (or perhaps even more powerful), and I don’t like the idea of the president being treated as just another member of congress. I am torn. It would be entertaining, but would it foster better decision making in our system?
Is he really being treated as another member of Congress? Just because the President and members of Congress are in the same room discussing politics and policy doesn’t put them on an equal footing, as far as power is concerned. Not the way I see it anyway.
Would it foster better decision making? Well, I think. What I see it doing is fostering more constructive debates. There is an insidious absence of a forum for public discussion between Republicans and Democrats. Staging interviews on any of the major new networks doesn’t seem in the least bit constructive. So, it seems to me that doing something like this more often would serve as a better conduit for healthy discussion and debate.
He wouldn’t exactly be treated as another member, but do you really deny that it would lower the esteem and political capital of the presidency? All day long the House debates mundane and weird things. Members make speeches and get riled up over minutia, and if the president were permanently available for questioning, he would get dragged into a lot of petty arguments that don’t deserve commander-in-chief attention.
Ah, see I thought you would say that. But I intentionally asked about decision-making instead of debate because that is what really matters. The debate is just a means to an end, the policy is the end. Nobody remembers or cares what the debate was like that lead up to our most monumental policy shifts in the past.
I have another comment on the video. It was interesting to me personally because I am a very interested political person with a debate background. I don’t think that most people would benefit from something like this, though. I don’t really have to make this point since Fox News delights in making it over and over, but a large plurality of people enjoy getting their news from sources like Fox News. They find it more entertaining. People like us who would watch an exchange like this are already plugged into the issues enough to know what the real differences are between the parties.
All valid points.
I just think it’s better than the alternative – what we have now – where there is almost zero opportunity for open, civilized discussion about the issues being served to Congress. Of course they “talk” about things behind closed doors and those will always occur, barring a complete polarization of American politics. However, as far as public debate goes, there is almost none. Perhaps what I’m saying is that discussions like these seem to have a civilizing effect – something the rather irrational, hot-headed public ought to be subjected to.
Alas, you’re probably right about the disinterested factor (as I also pointed out at the bottom of my post). I, too, think stuff like this probably bores the average Joe and Mary to death. I still think it’s worth a shot, though. It had an effect on me. But I’m weird though. I’m not an accurate reflection of the average American. I don’t even live in America.
Oh come on, they’re chicken butts. They can talk all big as long as the big dog isn’t in the room, and then the manners come out. I love this just because you can see what a big lie it is when they get all ‘FACE’ on Fox News.
By the way, this article you wrote inspired me to get back into the health care debate. I spent all morning yesterday reading about it and especially focusing on the actual policy differences between the House, Senate, and GOP bills. I have been laughing ever since. Here are what appear to be the biggest differences:
* The Dems want a mandate for most individuals
* (All want to provide tax credits to offset premiums) Dems want to give it to more people and pay the cost using increased efficiency and targeted upper-class taxes; the GOP wants to do it with just efficiency (Dems up to 400% FPL, GOP up to 300% FPL)
* The Dems want to provide subsidies to individuals to offset costs
* The Dems want to create an insurance exchange; the GOP wants to encourage one
* The Dems want to expand Medicaid slightly (to cover those slightly above the FPL)
* The GOP wants tort reform
I was shocked and impressed with how close they are in reality. As far as major principles go, there is no fundamental difference. The parties are just negotiating over some details. I mean really, in the scheme of things, whether the tax credit is going to extend to 300% of FPL or 400% of FPL is relatively minor. Then I got depressed because nobody is actually talking about these things. I wish someone would just blow the whistle on all the bullshit.
Instead, the lunatic fringe of the GOP is shrieking “socialism!” and the Democrats are busy ignoring everything the actual GOP has to say while muttering that they don’t offer any real solutions. Nobody is talking about the important, but minor, places where they actually have disagreements.
I read a breakdown of the healthcare proposals the other day via an article from Think Progress (I think). The analysis is very similar to yours. I’m trying to find it. It basically has the same conclusion you’ve given. That is, sensational politics is ruining effective governing and neither party can extinguish the fire that turns heads.
As you say, “Instead, the lunatic fringe of the GOP is shrieking “socialism!” and the Democrats are busy ignoring everything the actual GOP has to say while muttering that they don’t offer any real solutions. Nobody is talking about the important, but minor, places where they actually have disagreements.”
Chime the civilizing effect I mentioned above. Although I’m not sure if it really would have such a desirable effect. Frequent question time-like Q&A sessions might just turn into another political circus event. Maybe. I don’t know.
I would like to see that civilizing effect, I’m just not optimistic about it. It’s not so much that I think events like these would turn into circuses, I just think that politicians have no problem being two-faced. The same ones who were respectful and intelligent in that context were fear-mongering and fire-spreading the day before and the day after. In fact, the primary requirement of a good politician seems to be the ability to completely change personas as the context requires.
along the sames lines…
The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill: link
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html