KEEPING POLITICAL DEBATE CIVIL: THESE PEOPLE JUST DID
Our series, “Politics for the rest of us,” formally wraps up today as writer Brigitte Pellerin draws some optimistic conclusions from her interviews over the last month with 10 disparate Canadians willing to discuss their politics without resorting to namecalling or internet insults:
What started out as an idea is ending with a heartening revelation: I was right to believe that all those people shouting on social media were not representative of the rest of us.
We talk a lot about the fragmentation of our political discourse and the harsh, brittle and angry tone omnipresent on the internet. It’s an environment that discourages all but the most partisan from engaging in online political discussions. But there’s something else out there: a core of decent people with opinions and values and excellent critical skills who’d rather opt out of shrill online conversations.
I had myself left the online fray a few years back and was happier for it. But when Donald Trump and the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., happened, I could no longer stay silent. I’d been associated with the right wing for so long and I didn’t want anyone to think I was still in that camp if that camp meant Trump. My departure earned me many an unflattering epithet.
“We always knew you were a Liberal, you asinine Trudeau lover,” was the gist of it, albeit more crudely expressed in the internet universe.
That’s when the idea hit me: What if I could help bring people closer together to discuss their politics instead of watching social media push them farther apart? What if I could highlight how nuanced their opinions are?
I’m not the first one to think it would be nice if we could be civil to one another. For instance, a lady from Almonte wrote to tell me about her Friends of Mississippi Mills group on Facebook that aims to discuss local issues without negativity. A few media personalities have also done special shows on the subject, such as Steve Paikin on The Agenda or Andrew Coyne and Paula Simons debating civility on CBC Radio.
Samara Canada has an interesting project, Cheering or Jeering, where MPs open up about civility in their workplace (where it is sorely needed). And Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics campaign also contributes, albeit indirectly, to the solution.
A few academics are also studying the topic, including University of Lethbridge’s John von Heyking’s intriguing Friendship and Politics project.
Since mid-December, I’ve been interviewing people about their politics. They’ve all had the opportunity to describe themselves and their opinions — and sometimes concede maybe there’s room for debate.
This wasn’t scientific: I found most of my interviewees by putting out online calls for volunteers, whom I grouped roughly by labels (yes, I know. Bear with me). I wanted my sample to be reasonably well-balanced ideologically, geographically, demographically, culturally. Where I felt I was missing representation, I reached out to both personal acquaintances and the interviewees themselves for recommendations. This imperfect methodology meant there were gaps, but I hoped readers of the series would identify with at least one of my interviewees.
Here are some things these people have shown me:
Most people’s positions are not black and white, even on touchstone moral issues. For instance, those who were pro-choice were also quick to agree abortion was more problematic in the late stages of pregnancy.
Most, including fervent small-government advocates, were in favour of a universal health-care system; nobody wanted to go back to a time when a serious illness almost automatically meant bankruptcy.
Most favour an economic system in which it is not overly complicated to run a business and create jobs.
None, regardless of their spot on the political spectrum, liked the idea that universities should shut down unpopular ideas and speakers. Everybody was keen on having debates, even over obnoxious views. Everyone seemed to agree restricting speech leads to more bigotry because it renders people incapable of arguing against ideas they don’t like.
Alongside that, people were respectful of their fellows’ freedom of conscience, religion or speech.
Just about everybody was disappointed by politicians and felt ill-served by them.
Everyone was in favour of engaging in more in-depth discussions.
That last point surprised me the most, but in a pleasant way. These people wanted us all to talk more. Face to face, in long conversations, with those whose opinions differ from ours.
The exercise helped restore my faith in the inherent goodness of most people. As a rule, the comments I received directly were overwhelmingly positive. Readers liked the idea of hearing from normal people and agreed it was a good idea to do something about the tone of our public discourse.
Feedback wasn’t always this cordial. Some online commenters on the Citizen’s website seemed to miss the point of the exercise, choosing to insult interviewees’ opinions or question their motives.
Perhaps this shows what my interviewees have been saying: We need more inperson debates and fewer social-media slugfests.
I’m going to continue this experiment for a little while longer. From time to time, I’ll ask my panel for their opinions on specific news stories and see where they agree and disagree and why.
A lot of professional pundits share their own takes on any given topic; it would be nice for a change to have our new-found mini focus group of regular people — with real lives and real jobs outside of politics — tell us what they think, too.