On negativity
It seems that none of my readers did see that John Edwards interview on the Tonight Show, so I had a look around the web and discovered that there aren't any transcripts available of the show. However, even if I can't find the exact quote, I think the general thrust of it is valid, however it's expressed - negativity in politics is bad, because it makes people think that politicians are more interested in themselves and other politicians than they are in dealing with the concerns of ordinary people.
This year's Democratic primaries have shown that this argument is valid - Edwards' strident refusal to go negative has seen him become a leading candidate, and after tonight he could well be the last man standing against John Kerry in the contest while those who went negative, most notably Dick Gephardt against Howard Dean in Iowa, saw their hopes implode. Dean is also a case in point - while he made the early running by going heavily against Bush, when it came to actual votes he lost out to those candidates who could give people positive reasons to vote for him. In the Leno interview, Edwards said it could be seen as trying to apply Ronald Reagan's 'Eleventh Commandment' - Thou shalt not attack another Republican - to the Democrats - while both parties contain a diverse spread of opinion, in recent years the Republicans have managed to appear much more unified while the Democrats have been prone to internecine squabbling.
You can easily see the same in British politics - Labour's woes in the 80s were accompanied by massive internal disputes and the Tories' problems since the 90s were heralded by the party's inability to appear united over almost any issue. Now, under Howard, they appear a much more united party, and this can be given as one of the reasons for their rise in the polls, especially when the Labour Party seems to be caught up in more fratricidal strife.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that, especially in the context of party politics, unity cannot be imposed from the top, at least in the long term. In the short term it can work because parties tired of infighting will seize on the prospect of a respite from strife, especially if it promises electoral success. However, in the longer term, the old differences will re-emerge and if there's no way to confront these disputes amicable, strife will return again, perhaps even more destructive than before as the stakes - total control of the party under unified structures - are much higher.
Beyond the parties, though, there's the wider political arena and it's here where the culture of negativity in politics is most damaging. While we political junkies might lap up the adversarial nature of politics, it's a turn off for a lot of people who don't see a debate, but rather a shouting match with each side trying to drown out the other in a wall of noise. That's not to say there isn't a role for adversarial politics, especially in the role of scrutiny of policy, it's the yah-boo nature of it that doesn't appeal to many people. It's a culture where arguments are won rather than resolved where it's not just sufficient for an idea to be accepted, the opposing idea has to be belittled and discredited entirely.
Watching Prime Minister's Questions on TV, I've often been struck by the thought that it, especially the centrepiece clash between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, could very easily be presented and commentated on by BBC Sport rather than BBC News. Discussion of the policies could be quite easily removed and replaced by tactical analysis (complete with flashy statistics). Indeed the post-PMQ discussion on Daily Politics is eerily reminiscent of Gary Lineker's Match Of The Day studio chats with Alan Hansen.
I appreciate that change isn't going to happen overnight and, indeed, that I'm probably being slightly hypocritical myself in that I engage in pointlessly adversarial situations just for the fun of it, but isn't anyone else just getting bored of the whole thing?
This year's Democratic primaries have shown that this argument is valid - Edwards' strident refusal to go negative has seen him become a leading candidate, and after tonight he could well be the last man standing against John Kerry in the contest while those who went negative, most notably Dick Gephardt against Howard Dean in Iowa, saw their hopes implode. Dean is also a case in point - while he made the early running by going heavily against Bush, when it came to actual votes he lost out to those candidates who could give people positive reasons to vote for him. In the Leno interview, Edwards said it could be seen as trying to apply Ronald Reagan's 'Eleventh Commandment' - Thou shalt not attack another Republican - to the Democrats - while both parties contain a diverse spread of opinion, in recent years the Republicans have managed to appear much more unified while the Democrats have been prone to internecine squabbling.
You can easily see the same in British politics - Labour's woes in the 80s were accompanied by massive internal disputes and the Tories' problems since the 90s were heralded by the party's inability to appear united over almost any issue. Now, under Howard, they appear a much more united party, and this can be given as one of the reasons for their rise in the polls, especially when the Labour Party seems to be caught up in more fratricidal strife.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that, especially in the context of party politics, unity cannot be imposed from the top, at least in the long term. In the short term it can work because parties tired of infighting will seize on the prospect of a respite from strife, especially if it promises electoral success. However, in the longer term, the old differences will re-emerge and if there's no way to confront these disputes amicable, strife will return again, perhaps even more destructive than before as the stakes - total control of the party under unified structures - are much higher.
Beyond the parties, though, there's the wider political arena and it's here where the culture of negativity in politics is most damaging. While we political junkies might lap up the adversarial nature of politics, it's a turn off for a lot of people who don't see a debate, but rather a shouting match with each side trying to drown out the other in a wall of noise. That's not to say there isn't a role for adversarial politics, especially in the role of scrutiny of policy, it's the yah-boo nature of it that doesn't appeal to many people. It's a culture where arguments are won rather than resolved where it's not just sufficient for an idea to be accepted, the opposing idea has to be belittled and discredited entirely.
Watching Prime Minister's Questions on TV, I've often been struck by the thought that it, especially the centrepiece clash between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, could very easily be presented and commentated on by BBC Sport rather than BBC News. Discussion of the policies could be quite easily removed and replaced by tactical analysis (complete with flashy statistics). Indeed the post-PMQ discussion on Daily Politics is eerily reminiscent of Gary Lineker's Match Of The Day studio chats with Alan Hansen.
I appreciate that change isn't going to happen overnight and, indeed, that I'm probably being slightly hypocritical myself in that I engage in pointlessly adversarial situations just for the fun of it, but isn't anyone else just getting bored of the whole thing?
Nick got away with this at 1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home