[Wellsy]

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/On%20Political%20Representation.pdf

Politicians would often make better decisions if they never had to get re-elected, but that is not the point. Good decisions have first to be made by the great majority of the people, together, after which then getting the politicians to adopt those policies usually follows. Elections and the lousy politicians they produce are not the problem at the moment – it is the quality public discourse which is the underlying problem needing to be fixed, and elected politicians are in
no position to help.

This could be provided by examples of an individual who seems to bring desirable qualities to political discussion or the general culture of a group.

[wat0n]

I would guess a good example of such individual would be someone trying to provide an unbiased rundown of the scientific evidence that relates to the topic at hand. And in this case "unbiased" means that such individual would also mention that which disagrees with her personal views on that matter.

[Steve_American]

As a lawyer in an old "Law and Order" show would have said,
"You are making an assumption of fact that is not in evidence."

To wit, that the politicians care one wit about the desires of the bottom 70% of earners in America & maybe Aust., UK, EU, etc. I'm not sure about Canada, NZ, & Japan.

Politicians only care about their donors and the top 20% of earners.
You could see this clearly in the DNC, where nothing was said about policies to help the mass of workers who are in great distress. Dems seem to think that the status quo is fine for everyone. My sources tell me that the mass of Americans are in deep distress. They can't make their next mortgage payment or rent payment. They put food on the table by going to food banks. They will not be able to pay the bill if they get sick with covid-19, or any serious disease. The situation is far worse than the one in 2008 & 09.
The RNC & Repuds are worse.
.

[Torus34]

As a lawyer in an old "Law and Order" show would have said,
"You are making an assumption of fact that is not in evidence."

To wit, that the politicians care one wit about the desires of the bottom 70% of earners in America & maybe Aust., UK, EU, etc. I'm not sure about Canada, NZ, & Japan.

Politicians only care about their donors and the top 20% of earners.
You could see this clearly in the DNC, where nothing was said about policies to help the mass of workers who are in great distress. Dems seem to think that the status quo is fine for everyone. My sources tell me that the mass of Americans are in deep distress. They can't make their next mortgage payment or rent payment. They put food on the table by going to food banks. They will not be able to pay the bill if they get sick with covid-19, or any serious disease. The situation is far worse than the one in 2008 & 09.
The RNC & Repuds are worse.
.

Hi!

Your comment -- specifically the part which covers what politicians care about -- sent me to one of my 'go to' reference works. I found this:

"Position, n. An ideological point on the political map. To take a position is to plant both feet firmly on an undefined location. The basic map coordinates are ego and the political zeitgeist.

"A politician, one fine day
Said, with a lofty air:
'I'm standing on my principles.
I'm sure you'll find them fair.'

"And then he turned and walked away.
I checked the floor with care;
Examined where he just had stood,
But there was nothing there."

A Modern Dictionary, Fragmentary Press, 2016, Chelm, IA [Ed.: The book, a limited edition, is presently out of print.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

[late]

...it is the quality of public discourse which is the underlying problem needing to be fixed.

I like that bit.

We should have the world's best public education. We used to, last time I looked we were about 30th.

Not good.

Pity that Americans hate the idea.

[Torus34]

The word of greatest importance in the title line is 'quality'.

I propose that high quality in a political discussion would be shown by at least three things:

1. Respect towards all, including those who hold opinions other than one's own, and

2. A strong interest in learning new information and thus deepening one's understanding of an issue.

3. A very low level, perhaps even an absence, of memorized 'talking points' used as rejoinders.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

[Finfinder]

I like that bit.

We should have the world's best public education. We used to, last time I looked we were about 30th.

Not good.

Pity that Americans hate the idea.

It's a pity you actually think you speak for all Americans.

We are trying to get the liberals out of the education business, however they care about themselves more than the children.

Just as an example if the liberals actually cared about the kids and all lives including "black lives" they would be for school choice. Sadly all they do is project.

[Rugoz]

Politicians would often make better decisions if they never had to get re-elected, but that is not the point. Good decisions have first to be made by the great majority of the people, together, after which then getting the politicians to adopt those policies usually follows. Elections and the lousy politicians they produce are not the problem at the moment – it is the quality public discourse which is the underlying problem needing to be fixed, and elected politicians are in no position to help.

If there's one problem with representation, is that it causes a lousy public discourse. The devil is in the details, but details are almost never discussed when voting on people and parties instead of issues.

[late]

It's a pity you actually think you speak for all Americans.

We are trying to get the liberals out of the education business, however they care about themselves more than the children.

Just as an example if the liberals actually cared about the kids and all lives including "black lives" they would be for school choice. Sadly all they do is project.

You babble.

Mom was a math teacher. She started getting books on ed reform when I was in college, early 70s. I read a bunch of them.

After I graduated, I did some sub teaching. The 70s was an awful time to be a teacher.

Later I kept on eye on reform proposals and ideas.

After 25 years of trying to understand why, despite several attempts, we never reformed education. Americans hate the idea. I got there by process of elimination, and that was as much fun as grinding off skin with machine tools.

Places with a strong middle class have good or even excellent college track education. The last thing those parents will consider is something that might reduce funding for their kid. Quite unpleasant for you if you propose it.

Some Blue collar types don't like their kids asking them questions they can't answer.

Reactionaries that have a little on the ball try to blame teachers unions. That's lame, but better than your use of "liberals"...

Long story short, we need a federal education system. It would be available by request, but the whole purpose would be to have the worlds best secondary education, with the Feds covering part of the cost. I imagine it'd be popular.

Short story short, you haven't a clue.

[Finfinder]

You babble.

Mom was a math teacher. She started getting books on ed reform when I was in college, early 70s. I read a bunch of them.

After I graduated, I did some sub teaching. The 70s was an awful time to be a teacher.

Later I kept on eye on reform proposals and ideas.

After 25 years of trying to understand why, despite several attempts, we never reformed education. Americans hate the idea. I got there by process of elimination, and that was as much fun as grinding off skin with machine tools.

Places with a strong middle class have good or even excellent college track education. The last thing those parents will consider is something that might reduce funding for their kid. Quite unpleasant for you if you propose it.

Some Blue collar types don't like their kids asking them questions they can't answer.

Reactionaries that have a little on the ball try to blame teachers unions. That's lame, but better than your use of "liberals"...

Long story short, we need a federal education system. It would be available by request, but the whole purpose would be to have the worlds best secondary education, with the Feds covering part of the cost. I imagine it'd be popular.

Short story short, you haven't a clue.

Short story most of the "education system" is run by Democrats /liberals. You can not prove otherwise. You can try to gaslight that it is differnt but you know I'm correct. Why are you against bettering Black lives with school choice?

[Rancid]

To answer the question the OP poses. What makes for quality political discussion?

I think the first part of the problem is that people view politics as a debate. When people go into a debate, it means they are looking to be right. They are not looking to actually have an interesting and enlightening discussion. You see that here on pofo. Look at all the really good threads on pofo, they are always people discussing and kicking ideas back and forth, and not actually trying to prove others "wrong" and themselves "right".


This is what's missing in the media (mainstream, social, and otherwise). This is why the quality of most political "discussion" is crap. It's just a bunch of rigid jackasses trying to prove they are right. You see that shit right here on pofo too (the shit threads). We're all guilty of it of course, but some of us are bigger offenders than others.

Don't get me wrong, it's ok for there to be political debates, but not all political discussion should be a debate. In fact, most political discussion should not be a debate.

Edit:
On pofo, you can tell you are in a good thread when it goes like this:
Person 1: Makes some claim/assertion
Person 2: I don't think I believe that, Have you thought about XXXX which might run counter to your claim?

On pofo, you can tell you are seeing a shit thread when it goes like this:
Person 1: Makes some claim/assertion
Person 2: You're wrong... You dumb conservative/liberal/communist/whatever.... You don't know what you're talking about... I'm right because ....

The first example is discussion, the second is a debate, depending on how nasty it gets, it's really a fight.

[late]

Short story most of the "education system" is run by Democrats /liberals.

You can try to gaslight that it is different but you know I'm correct.

Why are you against bettering Black lives with school choice?

Texas has the most influential system. Not liberals, and that is a problem.

I know you don't know.

Private education without substantial federal funding and regulation doesn't change the system. Your voucher systems costs more, doesn't improve education quality. All you have to do is google DeVoss for a couple minutes.

[late]

The first example is discussion, the second is a debate, depending on how nasty it gets, it's really a fight.

After seeing the same inane BS repeated over and over and over for a generation, my patience is gone.

[B0ycey]

The thread title and OP snippet seem at odds. Politicians make lousy debates because they have to debate the narrative they are given regardless whether it's aburd or not...or in regards with America their financial backers interest. But on PoFo, debate quality depends on the knowledge the user's (debaters) have on a subject. There is nothing worse than debating someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and you have to provide the evidence to them all the time because they don't trust what you have said. I have always enjoyed posts from polar views to mine and the best threads are usually when you have two people with polar views who know the subject at hand and can hold their own. Some of the best users have now left. There are a few left which makes PoFo still enjoyable to read even if you don't participate. So I guess it is knowledge that underpins the quality of political discussion.

[Rancid]

I guess it is knowledge that underpins the quality of political discussion.

WRONG!

Seriously though, yes, that's fundamental.