WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

"It is stimulating debate if I sway you to my position, but mere quarrelsome argument if you persist in yours."
Unknown

Yeah, my post didn't take into account the exceptions to the rule. What I started with was that perc likes me when he agrees with me. After writing it, I realized it could sound derogatory, so I added that I think that's inherent to this kind of thing.

For example it's similar to the "you always think you are right" dilemma. That's natural, if you think you are wrong you will/should correct it and become right.

Unless you purposefully hold opinions you consider wrong, you will inevitably think you are right. So unless you purposefully do this, you will find the opinions with which you agree to be "more right".

Now if someone separates "brilliant" "right" and "correct" they can, as you say, admire them separately.

I'm not sure who here might watch the Newshour on PBS with Jim Lehrer. Each Friday, two commentators discuss the week in politics. Mark Shields speaks from a more 'left' viewpoint, and David Brooks from the 'right' (now and again, when someone is away, there'll be a replacement). Previous to Brooks, Paul Gigot filled that seat.

These are uniformly calm and thoughtful (and funny) exchanges and discussions on all the same issues we are addressing here. People take turns speaking, don't interrupt, and listen carefully and politely to each other. It is one of the very few such political discussion shows on tv presently.

These guys are all very bright and well educated, and rancor is rare - far far more rare than the chaps from left and right nodding their head in agreement with what the other has just said. I think mainly, that's attributable to PBS and Lehrer policy, as these individuals' columns are usually a bit sharper.

It's a wonderful segment I look forward to each week, because of how much one can learn from these guys. Transcripts are available online at the PBS site.

Brooks does a lot of barely-contained eyebrow stuff. Shields does a lot of barely-contained jaw stuff. (Eyebrow -- "Are you serious???" Jaw -- "I don't know if I've ever heard anything more idiotic.")

But it's contained, if barely.

I know what you mean.

I think that if there were truly just one person each having these discussions, a lot of the hive stuff Craven refers to would not be as much of an issue. I think that it is instructive to imagine how Brooks would behave if Mark Shields, Paul Krugman, Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd, and uh James Carville were arrayed before him, and Maureen tended to say a lot of snarky things almost but not quite under her breath.

soz

First off...what a pleasure to see you!

Yes, the two of them are constrained, but that's ok, a good thing. The only real rancor I witnessed was the period around the last election and the Florida shmozzle when Gigot and Shields were starting to not like each other much.

Did you ever see a show that ran about 15 years past where as many as a dozen folks sat in a circle discussing some legal/philosophical/polical issues? Scalia was always present, as was a very bright Catholic bishop, lawyers, doctors, writers, professors, etc. The discussion was well moderated and controlled by a prof from one of the big unversities.

Though there were that number of people involved, the structure imposed (along with an academic tradition of discourse, which is quite different from what modern political shows are up to) made the discussions civil and very rich.

What we see on this board too often, and it was so in abuzz as well, is Carville/Coulter style of argumentation, as opposed to the more academic style of Lehrer's show or the other one I mentioned. That's a problem, because it is what a lot of folks think political discussion ought to look like, having no better model. nimh is a very good example of someone who doesn't fall into this category.

I'll link this relevant piece I just bumped into, as it seems to be part of our problem too...

The High Costs of Rising Incivility on Capitol Hill
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/weekinreview/30STOL.html?8hpib

(I am not claiming that any one person is in the Maureen Dowd role, by the way. But I definitely see snarky stuff directed at the righties from any number of people. Snarky stuff from righties directed at lefties, too, of course. Point is how the sheer outnumbering aspect means that even a little unremarked upon snarkiness can contribute to polarizing the outnumbered righties in the way Craven describes.)

Oh hi, missed ya there.

Was going to say this via PM, no reason not to say it here, that I am consistently impressed with how you manage to step back and look at a situation with an open mind.

In those debates with large numbers of people, did the "sides" tend to be somewhat evenly matched?

soz

That's very kind. Thank you. Unless of course, you were referring to someone else, in which case, I take it back.

You know, that's a very good question, because I hadn't thought of it at all until you asked. I don't recall sides being taken at all! Isn't that interesting?

How to attribute that? The times were not so polarized then, but I don't think that's the main reason. Rather, I think it was the sophistication of the direction of inquiry (a dilemma posed, complicating factors thrown in, the narrowing to finer points) and the honest attempts on everyone's part to think the issues through. Notably, this moderator was VERY good.

The antithesis of the Shields/Brooks (and I really didn't think Saffire had enough personality to replace Brooks for the three months, even though he is his senior) combo would be the utter chaos on the McLachlin Group each week.

It was addressed to you.

Well, what you seek seems to lie in the debate forum, young man. I don't know the status of that.

I think it is safe to say at any rate that neither of those situations described consisted of one "side" being outnumbered by another. And that single dynamic affects a lot of our discussion here, which was (one of) Craven's point(s).

I'm not sure if there is any way for that to happen even in a debate forum, actually. Say a debate is started with 3 people on each "side". Chances are, you will have already gotten to know each other in some of the less disciplined debates. Chances are, certain feelings will have already been hurt, toes stepped on, etc.

The best chance is if the debate forum becomes its own entity, that people find through Google or whatever and join as fresh faces, fresh ideologies, and especially without the outnumbered aspect -- if every discussion is roughly equal in representatives from each perspective. Even then, it could become a sort of grandfathering situation, for lack of a better word -- Acon, Bcon, veterans of A2K, are joined by Ccon, a newbie. They argue with Alib, Blib, and Clib (hmm), and the veiled and unveiled insults fly fast and furious, Ccon objects to the insult thrown Bcon's way, Ccon is insulted in turn, and off we go.

VERY strict moderation would be required to keep that in check, and I don't know how many people would be willing to participate in something so strictly moderated. There are already complaints about the level of moderation on the general board.

I dunno, maybe I'm too pessimistic. I'm currently in one of my modes where I have no patience for the politics forum -- those modes come and go.

Blatham

Interesting article(your link) and it mirrors the polarization witnessed on this forum. It is a worrisome reality.

Sozobe's hypothetical situation of Brooks facing, Krugman, Ivins, Dowd, and Carville resonated with me because of the "hive" type of "drive the intruder away so we can get back to back slapping agreement"mode of operation.

Part of my point with that hypothetical, though, is that it is less about how the "other side" relates to each other (with one important exception, in a minute) than about how the outnumbered side is likely to perceive the situation and react. In other words, it's less that the majority necessarily wants to backslap and agree as that in reacting as they would on an individual basis -- Brooks and Krugman only, Brooks and Carville only -- they contribute to a sense of ganging up on the underdog, even if what they actually said/ how they said it would not be any different.

The important exception I see is not letting snarkiness on one's own side go by without comment. That's a sin of omission, IMO. (I do it when I can, gets wearying, especially if I'm not participating in the discussion in general at the time.) It's something I think blatham is good at.

soz and perc

I'm dead on my feet here...let me speak to you tomorrow.

Nighty-night!

If I'm thinking of the same ones you speak of, those are some of my most favorite shows on television. Here's a link to what I'm referring to.

PBS: Ethics In America



Those are great examples of discussions that are more like a quilting bee where the threads are woven into a tapestry for all to enjoy rather then a ping pong match for the individual winner to enjoy a few seconds of glory.

I find the tapestry much more interesting then the ping pong game over the long run.

Btrflynet

You got it! That's the baby. I hope everyone will take a look, there is a 5 minute real player example at the site, and it's very worthwhile.

The exceptional quality of those debates is a consequence of the exceptional minds gathered about, but also of other factors, I think.

First, an unfailing civility marked by careful speech and mutual respect. So there is an academic and philosophic tradition which the participants are all familiar with and which the moderated structure enhances. One aspect that this small video file doesn't show is how much good wit and laughing went on.

Second, questions and dilemmas are pursued with the intent of clarifying how a value or a principle might look under varying circumstances (eg..you are, in principle, opposed to taking the life of an unborn, but your daughter, who is the one pregnant, has been raped, and she doesn't want to carry).

So, it is a Socratic endeavor, not an Ann Coulter endeavor. The contrast between what is going on in this series and what goes on in modern televised political discussions (and often, in print) is pretty sharp.

Clearly, I think, we can't do that here using this structure. Too many potential contributors are now steeped in the 'Crossfire' mode, and it only takes one or two playing the discussion that way to drag everyone else down.

Blatham

This piece by Victor Davis Hanson from the NRO contains enough intellectual jargon to hold your interest I believe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200311260846.asp

Butterflynet

Your link to PBS--Ethics in America rings a bell with me because it is a subject that I have attempted to introduce here. Do you know if this type of course is taught in our universities? This particular series is listed under "Adult Education". When I have asked in a general way whether Ethics is taught at any level in our institutions of "higher learning" I have been "dusted off by the usual "elitist group" here as being something that should be taught at home and in high school. If it is not taught at university level can anyone tell me why it is avoided. It is evident that Harvard business school and other business schools do not teach ethics by the mass of greed scandals in the corporate world.

Just thought I'd ask. I get the impression from the activities in the business world that it is just not cool to worry about ethics "until I get my share".

Most folks here abhor the corruption, greed, and in general the scurrilous behavior in all segments of society but seem to be unable to focus on what I believe is a root cause of the problem-----ethical behavior is declining in popularity because it's for suckers and naive natives-----"it's just not cool".

perc

Any university will run ethics courses within the philosophy departments.

Increasingly, some will also have, within other departments such as business or medicine or law, mandatory or optional ethics courses related to those disciplines and their practice.

Does that answer your query?

Ethics as a subject is usually taught in the philosophy department, but it is not the ethics class you seem wish for. If students don't know right from wrong by university, they are unlikly to ever learn it. Waiting to instill ethical behaviour until late adolescence is asking for trouble.

Ethics is taught at all acredited universities, and Business Ethics is integral to any course of business study. Simply because a course is offered, and taken and passed, does not mean that the subject matter ever will be put to use by the student. Logic and Democrats comes to mind ....