Partisan politics

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ah, of course. You can't be a moderate unless you agree with the conservative position. You are obviously very well-versed on the concept of spectrums.

When it comes to life and death, no.

BTW: What is the conservative position on abortion? What do you use as your guide for determining what this conservative position is?

[DanaC]

Accusations of lying are issued on a pretty regular basis in American politics

As indeed they are here.....just not on the floor of the House :P

How could tools designed to promote calm be abused? Can you give some specific examples?

No, I cannot give specific examples; however, I can point to a number of areas in which the potential for litigation can have a negative effect. In the medical world, for example, many doctors are unwilling to take risks on behalf of their patients, for fear of litigation. I can think of several politicians, off the top of my head, who would become overly careful in the Commons' debates if the risk of litigation were there.

As a local politician I sometimes have to deal with planning matters. If I am to sit on a planning committee, I am legally obliged to enter that committee with an open mind. Because it is a quasi-judicial process, if I have at any time expressed an opinion on the application being heard, i must declare an interest and leave the room. If I have allowed myself to be lobbied by either party, I must declare an interest and leave the room. This is designed to protect the system from lobbying. The penalties are potentially very damaging: I could be removed from office and barred from standing for a number of years, I could also face a nasty fine. Simple enough right? Except it isn't. It isn't just based on what you say and do, it's based on what you are perceived to have said or done. If there is a potential for the general public to perceive that I have already made up my mind, then I am out of the process. Because of the 'reasonable perception' rule, I, and most councillors I know, are overly careful. This sets us at a distance from our constituents in a very important area. Our planning system is so tied up in such concerns it occasionally grinds to a halt. or produces rogue results.

No, I cannot predict the specifics, but I can tell you the effect on the individual of a fear of litigation: it makes one cautious. It can, if the risk of litigation is high, make one overly-cautious. I do not want my politicians to be overly cautious.

If you want politicians to treat each other with respect.....don't vote for thugs and morons.

The trouble is that very few politicians care more about political issues than they do advancing their political careers.

How many politicians do you know? The field is huge. In my country, and I suspect this applies to yours as well, the vast majority of politicians are not known beyond the borders of the area they represent. The number of politicians who make it into the public eye in any meaningful way is small compared to the number who do not. There are 646 Members of Parliament in Britain. Out of those there may be 150-200 who are well known to the general public (with most people able to name a handful of those).

The ones who make it into the public eye are the ones who play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. On the basis of their performance, people judge the integrity of the remaining several hundred who do not play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. Some of those will be just as ruthless as the front benchers....but many won't. There are plenty of MPs who do what they do with a public service ethos and no grand ambitions beyond representing their constituents. There are plenty who treat it like an ordinary job: doing what they can to help individuals and groups, attending the debates and voting on important issues, contributing in a meaningful way to society as a part of their work. There are also those who resent the fact they haven't progressed further, treat their job as a vehicle and enjoy the status.

They're just people. If you want to be represented by civil and pleasant people.....then vote for civil and pleasant people. Don't vote for the man you'd feel most comfortable sharing a pint with and then be horrified when he turns the floor into a pub brawl.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

No, I cannot give specific examples; however, I can point to a number of areas in which the potential for litigation can have a negative effect. In the medical world, for example, many doctors are unwilling to take risks on behalf of their patients, for fear of litigation.

Medical malpractice is not the same thing as political debate on political issues. Furthermore, in the U.S. whenever a doctor wants to prescribe, or even just give the patient the option of having, a treatment that is not 100% foolproof, the patient must sign a waiver whereby the doctor cannot be held liable in a malpractice suite.

I can think of several politicians, off the top of my head, who would become overly careful in the Commons' debates if the risk of litigation were there.

Which means that they now go out of their way to be insulting to their opponents rather than trying to find solutions to the political issues that they should be dealing with?

As a local politician I sometimes have to deal with planning matters. If I am to sit on a planning committee, I am legally obliged to enter that committee with an open mind. Because it is a quasi-judicial process, if I have at any time expressed an opinion on the application being heard, i must declare an interest and leave the room.

It sounds like a computer could be programmed to do your job. If you cannot venture an opinion based on your judgment, what purpose do you serve?

No, I cannot predict the specifics, but I can tell you the effect on the individual of a fear of litigation: it makes one cautious. It can, if the risk of litigation is high, make one overly-cautious. I do not want my politicians to be overly cautious.

I don’t want my politicians to spend their time throwing bombs at each other either when the public interest is at stake. If they have to have the fear of litigation to make them stop with the bombs, so be it. I don’t have anything to fear from a cautious politician as long as he is a conscientious politician who puts the public interest ahead of his personal or political interests.

If you want politicians to treat each other with respect.....don't vote for thugs and morons.

I don’t. But since it is one voter, one vote, one office holder with one seat in America, there is no way for me to prevent others from voting for thugs and morons. And in America as long as a politician can send government pork back home, most voters are content with their elected thugs and morons.

How many politicians do you know? The field is huge. In my country, and I suspect this applies to yours as well, the vast majority of politicians are not known beyond the borders of the area they represent.

If you mean personally, I know no politician. But because the news media is so vast in this country and politicians tend to spend entire lifetimes in office, it is easy to know many American politicians by reputation.

Also remember that constituencies on a national level in the U.S. are much more vast here than in the U.K. A presidential election can easily have 100,000,000 votes and a member of the House of Representatives, on average, has about 600,000 people living in his district.

The number of politicians who make it into the public eye in any meaningful way is small compared to the number who do not.

Can someone who never makes it to elected or appointed office be called a politician? And considering how restricted ballot access is for candidates that are neither Democrat, nor Republican, a large number of people who seek election to public office do get elected. The number of people who get elected to Congress is seldom much greater than the number of people who seek election to Congress. In most elections something like 98% of the incumbents in the House of Representatives get re-elected and many do so without any challenger in either the general or the primary election.

There are 646 Members of Parliament in Britain. Out of those there may be 150-200 who are well known to the general public (with most people able to name a handful of those).

Something like half of the voting age population in the U.S. is not registered to vote and a good turnout for an election is 50% of the people that are registered. Most Americans don’t care about politics, so most don’t know anything about any politicians. But most Americans that do make a point of voting on a regular basis would likely at least know the name of the President, Vice-President, a few cabinet members and Supreme Court judges as well as the name of their Senators and Representative along with the party leaders in Congress.

The ones who make it into the public eye are the ones who play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. On the basis of their performance, people judge the integrity of the remaining several hundred who do not play the political game, succeed in progressing to the top, or vocally rebel. Some of those will be just as ruthless as the front benchers....but many won't. There are plenty of MPs who do what they do with a public service ethos and no grand ambitions beyond representing their constituents. There are plenty who treat it like an ordinary job: doing what they can to help individuals and groups, attending the debates and voting on important issues, contributing in a meaningful way to society as a part of their work. There are also those who resent the fact they haven't progressed further, treat their job as a vehicle and enjoy the status.

Since America doesn’t have a parliamentary system and our party structure isn’t comparable to Britain’s, the politicians that most often get noticed are the mavericks that go out of their way to oppose their own party. Seldom does a member of Congress who votes against his party’s leader get punished in any way. There is no rule or regulation that says you must do X to be a member of a particular party. The current Republican presidential nominee has made a career of opposing the Republican Party leadership on many issues. There are no back benchers in America. You need not toe a party’s line to be a successful politician over here.

They're just people. If you want to be represented by civil and pleasant people.....then vote for civil and pleasant people. Don't vote for the man you'd feel most comfortable sharing a pint with and then be horrified when he turns the floor into a pub brawl.

We do not readily have this option in America since it is so hard for 3rd party and no-party candidates to get their name on the ballot. In the state of Florida you cannot even cast a write-in vote for someone that the state (controlled by the Democrats and Republicans) doesn’t recognize as a candidate.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Medical malpractice is not the same thing as political debate on political issues. Furthermore, in the U.S. whenever a doctor wants to prescribe, or even just give the patient the option of having, a treatment that is not 100% foolproof, the patient must sign a waiver whereby the doctor cannot be held liable in a malpractice suite.

Actually that is done for all invasive procedures and experimental treatments. None of that removes the patients right to sue or prevents them from suing sucessfully.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Actually that is done for all invasive procedures and experimental treatments. None of that removes the patients right to sue or prevents them from suing sucessfully.

My mother has Medicare because she is disabled and gets SSI (lupus). She has no choice but to get treatment at the local government hospital. That hospital won’t treat anybody that won’t sign a waiver whereby they specifically give up their right to sue if malpractice of any sort takes place.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

My mother has Medicare because she is disabled and gets SSI (lupus). She has no choice but to get treatment at the local government hospital. That hospital won’t treat anybody that won’t sign a waiver whereby they specifically give up their right to sue if malpractice of any sort takes place.

Changes nothing. People on Medicare and Medicaid are the first to sue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I do not want my politicians to be overly cautious.

Fear of litigation does not impose positive social forces upon politicians. Far more important and effective is peer pressure. Peer pressure in the Senate is more restrictive which is why Senators are traditionally more civil as compared to the House. But this system breaks down, becomes contentious, is undermined, when political agendas will subvert what makes a Congressional body work.

The more extremist that body becomes, then less civil and less productive that body becomes. What happens when a politician is more moderate; works more for America rather than for their party? We all saw Arlene Spectre lead a charge against the president (his own party) to subvert American protections of privacy and civil rights. Why? Arlene Spectre demonstrated why a political body needs more moderates and fewer extremists. When extremists use insults, phony accusations, and a political agenda to subvert that body, the majority - the moderates from both parties - will apply peer pressure to protect that body and its function (to serve the nation). After all, the difference between an extremist and a moderate: an extremist works for a self serving political agenda. A moderate works first and foremost for the nation. Why was Nixon served up for impeachment? Because Congress back then contained many more moderates. Because those moderates from both parties saw a man trying to pervert this nation's government for his own self serving agenda.

Peer pressure makes a political body work productively and makes litigation (most often) unnecessary. Does your politican work for the party or work for America. He cannot do both. When it comes to peer pressure, will he do what is best for the nation or do what is in the interest of his party? A question that better defines an extremists verses a moderate. A question says, in summary, whether peer pressure works within that body so that the body can argue the issues; not conduct personal attacks.

[DanaC]

So you don’t think abortion is a moral issue rather than just a political one?

You think we can murder people in moderation?

Your use of the term 'murder' in this context is, in itself, profoundly political.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But Dana, she's made up her mind, don't confuse her with facts.

[DanaC]

It sounds like a computer could be programmed to do your job. If you cannot venture an opinion based on your judgment, what purpose do you serve?

I can and do venture opinions in my job. I was referring purely to occasions when I have to sit on a quasi-judicial planning committee. Once inside that meeting any member can express an opinion. Prior to the meeting, a member must not reach a conclusion nor be seen to do so. This kind of committee is a very small part of my job.

Furthermore, in the U.S. whenever a doctor wants to prescribe, or even just give the patient the option of having, a treatment that is not 100% foolproof, the patient must sign a waiver whereby the doctor cannot be held liable in a malpractice suite.

And if the patient is unconscious? If the next of kin cannot be located? If a decision has to be made fast, if the risk has to be weighed up and a decision reached in time to stand a chance of saving the patient? Are you saying you can see no hypothetical situation that might lead a doctor to make his decision based on the risk litigation?

Which means that they now go out of their way to be insulting to their opponents rather than trying to find solutions to the political issues that they should be dealing with?

Well, okay, so you successfully legislate to ensure that your politicans can be sued for libel if they are personally insulted. Have you considered the various possible ramifications of that legislation? Have you considered the opportunities to take the political fight and have it out in lengthy court cases with frivolous actions brought at sensitive times (such as six months before an election)? Yes, it may make people more cautious about insulting someone, but it also may make people less willing to take a risk in attempting to expose someone. It won't only be those you seek to curb who feel themselves curtailed.

I don’t have anything to fear from a cautious politician as long as he is a conscientious politician who puts the public interest ahead of his personal or political interests.

Except, as you have already pointed out you believe most of your politicans do not put the public good ahead of their personal or political differences. Do you think a rule that allows litigation for libel is going to transform your politicians? Return to them, somehow, their moral compass?

If you want to think up legislation, you need to take account of where people are. If you base it on where you would prefer people to be, you may find it has some unintended consequences.

I don’t. But since it is one voter, one vote, one office holder with one seat in America, there is no way for me to prevent others from voting for thugs and morons. And in America as long as a politician can send government pork back home, most voters are content with their elected thugs and morons.

Democracy is a blunt instrument. See what happens when you trust the proles to vote?

If you mean personally, I know no politician. But because the news media is so vast in this country and politicians tend to spend entire lifetimes in office, it is easy to know many American politicians by reputation.

Many. I suspect not most. Manyh of our politicians also have lifelong careers. We also have our elder statesmen and our revered and famed rebels. The point remains, you are basing your judgement of a very large number of people on the media coverage of a minority of them.

Also remember that constituencies on a national level in the U.S. are much more vast here than in the U.K. A presidential election can easily have 100,000,000 votes and a member of the House of Representatives, on average, has about 600,000 people living in his district.

I don't see how that in any way counters the point I was making. In fact it seems to have little relevance to what we were discussing.

The number of politicians who make it into the public eye in any meaningful way is small compared to the number who do not.

Can someone who never makes it to elected or appointed office be called a politician?

I guess that would depend on your definition of politician. I was using the term to mean those who have been elected to serve in public office. The vast majority of elected politicians in my country are not well known. Those that are in the public eye, are the ones who have either succeeded to the front benches or are well-known rebels.

Something like half of the voting age population in the U.S. is not registered to vote and a good turnout for an election is 50% of the people that are registered. Most Americans don’t care about politics, so most don’t know anything about any politicians. But most Americans that do make a point of voting on a regular basis would likely at least know the name of the President, Vice-President, a few cabinet members and Supreme Court judges as well as the name of their Senators and Representative along with the party leaders in Congress.

I think you just made my point for me.

Since America doesn’t have a parliamentary system and our party structure isn’t comparable to Britain’s, the politicians that most often get noticed are the mavericks that go out of their way to oppose their own party.

Here also, the most admired and well-known politicians are often those who have rebelled against their party or crossed the floor.

We do not readily have this option in America since it is so hard for 3rd party and no-party candidates to get their name on the ballot. In the state of Florida you cannot even cast a write-in vote for someone that the state (controlled by the Democrats and Republicans) doesn’t recognize as a candidate.

That's unfortunate; however, the republican and democratic parties encompass a hell of a lot of people there is no reason to say their representatives cannot be pleasant and polite. There is equally no reason to think that members of smaller parties will not be bullish and unpleasant.

I don’t want my politicians to spend their time throwing bombs at each other either when the public interest is at stake. If they have to have the fear of litigation to make them stop with the bombs, so be it.

It wouldn't stop the bombs it would merely change the nature of the munitions. Politicians would still throw bombs but they would consist of libel cases.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I can and do venture opinions in my job. I was referring purely to occasions when I have to sit on a quasi-judicial planning committee. Once inside that meeting any member can express an opinion. Prior to the meeting, a member must not reach a conclusion nor be seen to do so. This kind of committee is a very small part of my job.

This doesn’t sound like anything that I am familiar with in the U.S. It sounds like you are given a narrow time frame in which to form an opinion on something. I don’t know of any comparable situation in the U.S. Even courtroom judges are expected to have opinions about things that they must consider in their courtrooms even before the things come up in a courtroom setting. And the only way a ventured opinion can hurt a judge is when it keeps them from being appointed to a higher court.

But at any rate, a judicial setting isn’t necessarily a political setting. Legislators and executives have to consider issues that a judge may never have to consider.

And if the patient is unconscious? If the next of kin cannot be located? If a decision has to be made fast, if the risk has to be weighed up and a decision reached in time to stand a chance of saving the patient? Are you saying you can see no hypothetical situation that might lead a doctor to make his decision based on the risk litigation?

Getting the consent of the patient or the next-of-kind is always the first choice. But when consent cannot be obtained, doctors in the U.S. still have a legal obligation to use their best judgment to give treatment. As litigious as American society is, failing to treat a patient will just as likely get a doctor sued as giving the wrong treatment or botching the right treatment will. And remember that a malpractice suit between patient and doctor is not the same as a libel/slander suit between politicians. So you still haven’t explained how a politician would be overly cautious in debate due to a fear of lawsuits.

Well, okay, so you successfully legislate to ensure that your politicans can be sued for libel if they are personally insulted. Have you considered the various possible ramifications of that legislation? Have you considered the opportunities to take the political fight and have it out in lengthy court cases with frivolous actions brought at sensitive times (such as six months before an election)?

I don’t expect there to be many court fights because the fear of being sued would insure that politicians keep a civil tongue in their mouths.

Yes, it may make people more cautious about insulting someone, but it also may make people less willing to take a risk in attempting to expose someone. It won't only be those you seek to curb who feel themselves curtailed.

People that don’t sit in Congress aren’t protected against slander and libel suits under federal law- and people that do sit in Congress can be sued if they libel or slander someone when they are not in the Capitol building in D.C.

My U.S. Representative can stand in the House of Representatives and call her election opponent a crook without being sued. If she does it on the Capitol steps she can be sued. But if the constitutional immunity were removed no member of Congress would risk slandering someone without having supporting evidence. Being in the habit of not being sued because they can lash out at their opponent from the halls of Congress with immunity encourages members of Congress to lash out everywhere else. Since political challengers seldom have enough money to wage even a halfway effective campaign against incumbents they certainly cannot afford to launch a libel suit. But if members of Congress were to start suing each other, them maybe they’d learn to fear lawsuits from the rest of us.

Except, as you have already pointed out you believe most of your politicans do not put the public good ahead of their personal or political differences. Do you think a rule that allows litigation for libel is going to transform your politicians? Return to them, somehow, their moral compass?

What else would you propose? Litigation would be a start, but I think you would also need things like term limits and unhindered ballot access.

Democracy is a blunt instrument. See what happens when you trust the proles to vote?

The U.S. is not a democracy, but rather a republic. The Constitution was intentionally designed to temper the majority lest it make rash decisions at the ballot box or demand that politicians make decisions that are detrimental to the public good. Sadly some of these constitutional provisions have been unwisely altered while the quality of the people who are willing to be politicians has greatly deteriorated.

The point remains, you are basing your judgement of a very large number of people on the media coverage of a minority of them.

It is true that America’s news media does not (and physically cannot) give an equal amount of coverage to every U.S. politician. But from the extensive coverage that the most prominent politicians share, you can easily get a good understanding of the character of our prominent politicians. And birds of a feather acting the way they do, you can easily (and likely accurately) extrapolate the character of politicians in general.

I don't see how that in any way counters the point I was making. In fact it seems to have little relevance to what we were discussing.

I was pointing out how much easier it is for Britons to interact with their politicians. A single voter in Britain carries far more weight than a single American voter does in national elections.

I guess that would depend on your definition of politician. I was using the term to mean those who have been elected to serve in public office. The vast majority of elected politicians in my country are not well known. Those that are in the public eye, are the ones who have either succeeded to the front benches or are well-known rebels.

Can you give me some idea about how many people seek election to any single seat in the Commons in an election? In the U.S. most 3rd parties don’t make it to the ballot and seldom does an incumbent face a challenger for re-nomination and if the other party does manage to nominate a challenger for the general election that challenger is often nominated without opposition from within his party. You seldom have more than 2 people seeking the same seat in Congress. The power of incumbency in the U.S. (at virtually every level of government and every office) is so strong that few other people ever bother to run for office. In comparison to the number of elected offices that exist in this country, the number of politicians this country has is very small. The odds of defeating an incumbent are so great and politicking is so contentious that few decent people are willing to be candidates.

Here also, the most admired and well-known politicians are often those who have rebelled against their party or crossed the floor.

Which begs the question: If so many voters admire people who are not party politicians, why do so many voters return party politicians to office?

That's unfortunate; however, the republican and democratic parties encompass a hell of a lot of people there is no reason to say their representatives cannot be pleasant and polite. There is equally no reason to think that members of smaller parties will not be bullish and unpleasant.

Likely true, but as long as American voters don’t have a 3rd party option, we will never know for certain.

It wouldn't stop the bombs it would merely change the nature of the munitions. Politicians would still throw bombs but they would consist of libel cases.

I don’t think so. It would cost too much to wage, let alone lose, a lawsuit for politicians to risk having very many of them.

[Sundae]

I was going to participate in this thread.
But having taken both the contraceptive pill and the morning-after pill it is statistically likely that I am a murderer. I'm therefore ineligible to vote.

[DanaC]

Oh hey yeah....that makes me a murderer too !

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Arlene Spectre lead a charge against the president (his own party) to subvert American protections of privacy and civil rights. Why? Arlene Spectre demonstrated why a political body needs more moderates and fewer extremists.

Arlene Spectre for Arlen Specter is one hell of a brick.

[Aliantha]

There is a very long discussion on the moral issue of abortion in the philosophy thread. Perhaps you should address that there rather than in the politics forum.