ARGUMENT CLINIC: YR DOING IT RIGHT
Oct. 25th, 2009 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogNot to get all intellectual on you on a Sunday morning. But ...
The other night on BBC World, I saw a taped broadcast of a debate in Sydney staged by Intelligence Squared and the St James Ethics Centre as part of the first Festival Of Dangerous Ideas. The idea is simple enough: put forth a statement, have presenters speak in favor or against it, and poll the audience before and afterwards to see which side gave the most convincing argument.
The statement:
By which they mean this:
As you can imagine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the Philippines came up a lot – as did George W Bush, who always claimed there was nothing wrong with yr country that Democracy and $100 couldn’t fix.
For my money both sides made good arguments, and in the end, I thought the side voting against the statement made the better case – with the proviso that while Democracy may be something most people want, they don’t necessarily want it in the same form or fashion, and that the Western model of Democracy isn’t exactly the role model it used to be, and hasn’t been ever since the US decided that corporations count as people.
But what really struck me was the tone. The speakers were occasionally snarky in their arguments, but entertainingly so, and the whole thing was generally good-natured. And the audience was not only throwing out interesting comments, but also somehow managing to avoid shouting down their opponents as Communist Nazi Socialists.
Unlike some audiences at political discussions I could mention.
I’m just saying.
Taking questions from the floor,
This is dF
The other night on BBC World, I saw a taped broadcast of a debate in Sydney staged by Intelligence Squared and the St James Ethics Centre as part of the first Festival Of Dangerous Ideas. The idea is simple enough: put forth a statement, have presenters speak in favor or against it, and poll the audience before and afterwards to see which side gave the most convincing argument.
The statement:
Democracy is not for everyone.
By which they mean this:
Is the promise of democracy real, or merely a fiction to advance the interests of the few by beguiling the majority with myths of equality, liberty and fraternity?
Democrats have some obvious rivals for political virtue. God (rather than the people) makes a pretty good showing in many states (the Vatican is ruled by an absolute monarch). Then there are the claims of a variety of Chiefs, Kings ... and even Fiji’s Commodore Bainimarama; who invoke custom, tradition or raw power as alternatives to democratic legitimacy.
It’s time to take the dare and put an intellectual blowtorch to the belly of democracy’s defenders.
Democrats have some obvious rivals for political virtue. God (rather than the people) makes a pretty good showing in many states (the Vatican is ruled by an absolute monarch). Then there are the claims of a variety of Chiefs, Kings ... and even Fiji’s Commodore Bainimarama; who invoke custom, tradition or raw power as alternatives to democratic legitimacy.
It’s time to take the dare and put an intellectual blowtorch to the belly of democracy’s defenders.
As you can imagine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the Philippines came up a lot – as did George W Bush, who always claimed there was nothing wrong with yr country that Democracy and $100 couldn’t fix.
For my money both sides made good arguments, and in the end, I thought the side voting against the statement made the better case – with the proviso that while Democracy may be something most people want, they don’t necessarily want it in the same form or fashion, and that the Western model of Democracy isn’t exactly the role model it used to be, and hasn’t been ever since the US decided that corporations count as people.
But what really struck me was the tone. The speakers were occasionally snarky in their arguments, but entertainingly so, and the whole thing was generally good-natured. And the audience was not only throwing out interesting comments, but also somehow managing to avoid shouting down their opponents as Communist Nazi Socialists.
Unlike some audiences at political discussions I could mention.
I’m just saying.
Taking questions from the floor,
This is dF
