Advocate of Laughably Impractical Solutions to Imprecisely Defined Problems with America:
The debate format of the House of Commons is truly outstanding. It lets the opposition really put its points to the leadership. In the US, what Bush would do if the Dems had the courage to criticize him, is make a related but non-responsive affirmative statement creating a new focal point in the discussion, and then re-state as necessary (typically many times). Through sheer tenacity in the face of the exhaustingly boring process of infinite restatement, Bush would win.
So our system lets Bush avoid truly responding to criticism, which is a pity. Effective American political tactics create a cross-fire of loosely related, non-responsive, affirmative statements. Which is personally why I find it so hard to pay attention to what any of them say.
To be honest, I observe this tendency in American public discourse in general. (Maybe in our debates.) What do you think?
So our system lets Bush avoid truly responding to criticism
I'll take that as agreement. That's just what I think. I've made my "cut farm subsidies, teach philosophy, change the educational system" proposals, what does anyone else think can be done?
In our last debate, my argument was that improving the design of our political & electoral system is more important than hectoring Americans for their personal failings, or even than spending more money on education. This is a classic example. You can teach all the philosophy you want, but our system will never force George W. to respond to these questions.
Blogging may be one constructive systemic response. It certainly has kept alive other issues (Lott, Howell Raines) that would previously have been "spun" or ignored away.
Dear Mr. Ogged,
Advocate of Laughably Impractical Solutions to Imprecisely Defined Problems with America:
The debate format of the House of Commons is truly outstanding. It lets the opposition really put its points to the leadership. In the US, what Bush would do if the Dems had the courage to criticize him, is make a related but non-responsive affirmative statement creating a new focal point in the discussion, and then re-state as necessary (typically many times). Through sheer tenacity in the face of the exhaustingly boring process of infinite restatement, Bush would win.
So our system lets Bush avoid truly responding to criticism, which is a pity. Effective American political tactics create a cross-fire of loosely related, non-responsive, affirmative statements. Which is personally why I find it so hard to pay attention to what any of them say.
To be honest, I observe this tendency in American public discourse in general. (Maybe in our debates.) What do you think?
Posted by Magik Johnson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-03 12:38 PM
So our system lets Bush avoid truly responding to criticism
I'll take that as agreement. That's just what I think. I've made my "cut farm subsidies, teach philosophy, change the educational system" proposals, what does anyone else think can be done?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 8-03 10:48 PM
In our last debate, my argument was that improving the design of our political & electoral system is more important than hectoring Americans for their personal failings, or even than spending more money on education. This is a classic example. You can teach all the philosophy you want, but our system will never force George W. to respond to these questions.
Blogging may be one constructive systemic response. It certainly has kept alive other issues (Lott, Howell Raines) that would previously have been "spun" or ignored away.
Posted by Magik Johnson | Link to this comment | 06- 9-03 4:31 PM
Can you explain the distinction you're making between "systemic" and "personal?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 9-03 5:15 PM