Debates hardly constitute a conversation.
That point was driven home with the first, and possibly last, nationally-televised candidate debate held Aug. 6 in Toronto. Leaders for the Liberal, Green, NDP and Conservative parties debated the issues as moderated by the Maclean’s magazines’ Paul Wells.
It seemed to us all leaders did a good job of getting across their viewpoints. All were articulate, all seemed to have a grasp on issues and all had a varying outlook on what the current government has or hasn’t accomplished.
For viewers it wasn’t easy to discern the best performance. Partisans will have their obvious choice, but for the average citizen who generally engages only during an election cycle it wouldn’t be easy. Even most pundits suggested there was no clear winner.
With the continuing fragmentation of the media, leaders weren’t quick to commit to debates this time. There was some indication that Conservative leader Stephen Harper would not automatically attend a debate usually held by a consortium of broadcasters. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair seemed to accept the notion. This leaves Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and the Green party chief Elizabeth May to have a conversation – and maybe that is not a bad idea should the consortium choose to pursue it.
Politically, the country is in dire need of a conversation. The environment, the economy, health care, care for seniors, crime, national security, the burgeoning national debt and a host of other issues need a thorough discussion. Instead of engaging in a debate where talking points and positions are advanced, it would be refreshing to see common ground accepted. Rather than trash-talk a competitor, how novel it would be to see moderators facilitate points of agreement.
We wondered how best to explain this idea and perhaps pointing to a letter to the editor this week gives an indication why conversations are better than banter.
In late July we wrote an editorial endorsing Minto council’s rejection of a proposal to allow ranked balloting in municipal elections.
Reaction to that position could be one of three things, indifference, agreement or disagreement. All three are fair points of view.
Instead we received a letter deriding our belief the current system has worked fine for the last 150 years – citing the fact Canada was not officially created until 1867, (some two years shy of 150 years). To the uninformed, such a claim may have qualified as a “gotcha” moment in a debate. The fact is, as it relates to local government in Wellington County, elections have taken place since its incorporation in 1854.
Further to that false premise, other issues are raised with our position, and we still can’t discern if the writer favours ranked ballots or not, which was the original discussion point.
We think Canadians need to move beyond these types of sophomoric debates, where opinions or policies are attacked, credibility is questioned and no sensible alternative point of view is provided. That type of debate, by its nature, is not constructive.
