What Decorum Means in Politics

John Ivison gets it wrong. Which is a shame, because he has lots to contribute, and he himself will bemoan the loss of rational debate on complex issues.

But Mr. Ivison gets it wrong on the structure of debate and decorum in the House of Commons. In a recent article for the National Post, he's thankful any motion to improve decorum is doomed to fail. In his words, "The House of Commons was never intended to resemble a lending library."

Of course not.

"But God forbid decorum is ever imposed on the House. As the English Conservative, Lord Hailsham, once said: “Politics should be fun – politicians have no right to be pompous or po-faced. The moment politics become dull, democracy is in danger.”"


Let's deconstruct this a bit here in a few different ways.


Firstly, the House of Commons should not resemble a lending library, with incessant shushing and sanctimoniously reticent bespectacled clerks. However, it does resemble and is a room of sanctimoniously hyper-partisan politicians.


Decorum doesn't have to mean and I argue it shouldn't mean "getting along". It should be about sticking to the issue. Exploring the issue, talking about the issue. Presenting diverse perspectives over top an implicit assumption that we spend millions on representatives to deliberate on the best course of action on an issue of public import. And we improve the quality of that deliberation by getting rid of ad-hominem attacks, by getting rid of the king-of-the-hill tribalism whose effects include the muzzling of evidence-based policy-making and the current Harper government's many changes that would best be seen as being two-fold A) disadvantaging any critic in self-preservation and B) reshaping the country's operative framework according to ideology.

These are stumbling factors, and I place them under the label of "ideology" and "partisanship". I say them pejoratively. Ideology I often equate with shallow thinking, with not being able to give credit where credit is due when looking at an issue, and with generally having a diluted appreciation for complexity. Partisanship I see as the favouring of tribal interests ahead of coming together to have a rational debate and expressing diverse views in a constructive manner. What makes debate constructive is decorum.

Decorum should be about removing those stumbling factors from the processes of parliamentary democracy. That is, even if MP Nathan Cullen isn't articulating it the way I would want him to,  is advocating.

I criticize Mr. Ivison in order to call him back to something he wrote last year. When MP Bryan Hyer introduced randomized seating as a way to reduce tribalism. Mr. Ivison wrote,

"The day may not yet have arrived for randomized seating but there are other measures put forward by Mr. Hyer and others that could increase cross-party co-operation. For example, there is a petition to gain support for a change that would allow MPs of different parties to sponsor the same private members’ bill...

The cross-party co-operation campaign calls for the standing orders of parliament to be changed to allow co-sponsors, so that the merits of the idea becomes more important than where it originates. This seems a sensible reform that would enable more private members’ bills to pass and make the role of MPs more meaningful...

The rules of parliament are not conducive to walking a mile in the shoes of MPs of other parties. Yet even in the middle of the omnibus vote marathon there was kindred spirit. “John Baird is the kid with gum on his nose,” wrote the NDP’s Megan Leslie, referring to the Foreign Minister’s horsing around in the House. The tribalism is not so innate that it cannot be transcended by the common cause of MPs representing their respective communities. "

 This is an admission, firstly, that tribalism (or partisanship as I use the word) is a stumbling factor to coming together and fulfilling the role of Member of Parliament. This secondly assumes there is a shared role for politicians. There isn't.

As a result, the political party gains inordinate influence on the behaviour of politicians and this directly affects decorum and the effectiveness of the House as a legislative body.

I don't mind that John Ivison ended on a cheery note that there is a basic level of decency and collegiality among politicians. What I mind is that politics is a serious business. Can be fun, sure, okay. But it is the one of the most, if not the most consequential profession: legislator.

Let's go back to Lord Hailsham. He was a lord in a parliamentary system that oversaw the definition of Dickensian, whose evolution did not include universal suffrage until the 20th century. The powerful are usually well-insulated from the consequences of their role in bad government.

We can analyze what good government is and ought to be, and decorum is a major part of it. Not for getting along, horsing around or joking around, but for sticking to the issue, and not giving in to the pettiness that stumbles good-faith discussion of complex issues.

One thing to end on, if discussion of complex issues is dull, we are simply not electing the right people to government.

Political Speech and the Degradation of Substantive Debate

I will posit the core of many of our Parliament's problems come from the lack of collaboration in pursuing tough questions.

As Maclean's Aaron Wherry writes of the first day back in session, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair went back and forth over the First Nations issues in a "rhetorical stalemate". The PM did as everyone does when they don't have a better answer: he resorted to "political speech".

I call it political speech anyway. It means you maximize the good, and minimize the bad. Take as much credit and deflect as much blame. We primarily see it in half-assers. This is a symptom, or a reaction really. We are accused of not doing a good enough job, and we go "well, we did this and this and that, and that part wasn't really my fault so..."

It should be seen as natural, is what I mean. Of course, how immensely difficult is it to address the core of these issues, and actually work to fix that whole host of problems that afflict Aboriginal communities across Canada in a substantive way?

Obviously it's very difficult, but we can't get there if our political parties are playing king-of-the-hill.

In a separate article, Wherry writes of civility and decorum in the House of Commons. This is something I am extremely passionate about. I believe civility is a means to an end. Not simply about being nice, but about being productive, actually addressing the issue. And if we don't think of it that way, then we should start to.

One of the issues Wherry sees with this is the appearance of controlling speech, or curbing it more specifically. He writes

"So how to separate the acceptable expressions from the unacceptable, the permissible from the harmful? We have come up with laws of war, so probably we can devise standards of democracy. But it is difficult to enforce rules on the rhetorical, dangerous even to say what can and cannot be said—all the more so in a place that is supposed to represent all of us, even the jerks."

 Among the ideas presented, NDP House leader Nathan Cullen calls for civility and penalties should infringements be made. Wherry quotes Conservative MP Lawrence Toet. See if you can spot the uncivil portion:

"Mr. Speaker, Canada is not immune to global economic challenges from beyond our borders. That is why in 2013 we will continue our commitment to grow the economy and create jobs by keeping taxes low and through measures like major new investments in research and development. However, while we are focused on helping the economy grow, the NDP wants a $21 billion carbon tax which would cripple our economy and put Canadians out of work. Could the Minister of Finance please give this House an update on our government's action to grow the economy and create jobs for hard-working Canadians?"

 Wherry continues,

"The Conservatives would argue that this was a question about government business—you see, even when rules are applied, there are ways of getting around them for your partisan purposes. But the Speaker might have stood up immediately after that third sentence, pronounced the question unfit and moved on to the next MP in line. He might set the standard that no wandering into such nonsense in this particular way would be tolerated."

 It is only aggravating that the Speakers are so complacent in their roles.

Their British counter-part John Bercow has gone on to become something of a "champion" for parliamentary reform. He "never been much given to little social cliques. And I’ve never been of that part of the Tory party that was given to dining in clubs and [saying], ‘Shall we meet for a few G&Ts afterwards?’ and that sort of thing.” Bercow seeks to change the culture of the House by changing its rules, "The herd have a Speaker determined to change their ways on several fronts. At a time when many grand claims are made about a new politics Bercow's public openness marks an historic break with Speakers of the past."

I interviewed Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie before her retirement on such progressive reforms, and was disappointed to find that Speakers only enforce the given parliamentary code and procedure, and not arbitrate between acceptable and unacceptable proffers of argument. Pity.

Yet, anyone watching these interactions would say this is part of the problem. For my part, I believe all these characters, Wherry, Cullen, Bercow etc are touching on relatively the same thing: culture and interaction.

The structure of our Parliament should encourage and cultivate civil and collaborative efforts to tackle public problems with public resources. In this light, civility and productive debate seem the most common-sense expectations when we spend millions sending people to a place where they come together to deliberate on deep, complex issues.

By affecting the structure, the rules, we affect interaction. When we aggregate those interactions, we often call it culture.

Let's change the culture.

Debt, Gen Y and 100 years from now

Vancouver is the second least affordable city in the world, according to Demographia.

I ask, does valuing the high prices of living in this city outvalue the worth of a livable city?

Does the society benefit when the values are so high, when more young people are renting than ever before? When consumer debt is highest? What happens twenty years from now? Is this tenable, to put our net worth in our houses, only to find debt increasing, the housing market thoroughly unsustainable, Generation Y having to cross the country to find work?

Who's putting all this together? 100 years from now will we see this as part of the problem?

I think it's also telling when the median wage for Gen Y is $23,400 and the most commonly held job is "merchandise displayer". The second most common job is clothing lines rep, third is cellular phone rep. It's the service sector.

This is the service sector, which I think is a vampiric sector that doles out meager pay to low-skilled (and quite likely educated) employees. Most likely the products they sell were not made in Canada. Most likely the companies reap billions. And the jobs they create, despite their not being "good" jobs, are added to the employment numbers.

This was the case in America when employment rose, but they were in low-wage jobs in the service sector. Let this Young Turks segment fill out that and more:

Anyway, that's an aside.

What matters is that 100 years from now, they're going to look at these things and say, yep, that's part of the problem.

Permissable Debate

In a related news bit, Alex Pareene at Salon.com has a great article about the daily conduct of Members of Congress in the US. Starting with a Huffington Post article about the time Members spend fundraising, and how this comes at an opportunity cost (article via Mother Jones) for Members to actually learn about the issues. Politicians spend about 4 hours a day (this may actually be low-balling it, as the Mother Jones article says) calling sponsors and lobbyists.

This is in line with the article from NPR detailing how it's become a seller's market for lobbyists. Politicians stalk them now for contributions and fundraisers. And if politicians do not spend this much time, they will lose their next election, 85% guarantee.

This is how American democracy works. What I personally cannot shake is that by talking about these issues, namely campaign financing and the attendant patronage/conflict-of-interest/revolving-door-practice issues, is that it makes me feel like a throw-back to the 60s talking about the military-industrial complex, man. And how they like, control everything. Even the boundaries of permissable debate.

In a roundabout way, this Young Turks segment below accentuates a point I want to make.

 

Citing a MediaMatters study, during a record heat wave in America, only 14% of the news stories mentioned climate change. Of those who mentioned climate change, of the politicians, whom we entrust great responsibility over the future our world, 100% were Republican.

Now, who contributes to those Republicans? Whose interest do those Republicans represent? In whose best interests is it that meaningful action over climate change not be taken to their even slight detriment? The answer is obvious. The Federal Election Commission reports (via Examiner) that oil companies contributed $30M in 2010 in the Congressional elections. 77% of that money went to Republicans. As the author for the Examiner article writes, "every special interest contributes money to candidates, not for good government, but for government that is good to them."

Never mind that this is all connected. That the reason politicians shill for oil companies is because they'd be out of a job if they did not. The point I want to make is about how all these players, involved in the Great Political Forum of television, control the boundaries of permissable debate either explicitly by what they talk about or tacitly by what they choose not to talk about.

These are the people on television, these are the people who occupy our mainstream forum on politics and they dominate the conversation on where America is headed as a country. Revolving door politics? Corruption? Torture, climate change, war crimes, those are all weeded out of the discussion so necessary for the vitality of a nation--any nation--and the consequences are deep and manifold.

Gaming for the Trough

In an analysis published in the National Post, Charles Babington looks at the fiscal cliff deal and writes how for many individual lawmakers, the “crisis” is politically good for them, and not really by fault of their own.

The article does well to show the game that’s being played at the public expense. Lawmakers want to stay in power and not be overthrown and thusly play on the ignorance of the electorate, who “abhor tax hikes, or spending cuts, that any bipartisan compromise must include. Many of these voters detest compromise itself, telling elected officials to stick to partisan ideals or be gone.”

This is what we see as the game of politics, as opposed to statesmanship. Babington writes that the US “Congress’ repeated struggles are less bewildering when viewed not from a national perspective but through the local lens of typical lawmakers, especially in the House.” Babington continues,

For the scores of representatives from solidly conservative districts – or solidly liberal ones – the only realistic way to lose the next election is by losing a primary contest to a harder-core partisan from the same party. The notion of “being primaried” strikes more fear in many lawmakers’ hearts than does the prospect of falling stock markets, pundits’ outrage or a smudge on their national party’s reputation.”

Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn is quoted as saying that 86% of her district believe the nation’s deficit should be addressed entirely by spending cuts. This is a position that, in the face of the Great Recession, and the great inequality between rich and poor in America, can simply be called “ideological”. In reality it is ignorance, but because the way the system is structured, that true education of the electorate on matters of historical import is for whatever reason unreachable, politicians play on those ignorances if only for their own benefit and preservation.

This is a “race to the intellectual bottom” that hurts America, and consequently the world.

***

When not engaged in demagogical politics, representatives scout lobbyists for fundraising. Normally, as Andrea Seabrook and Alex Blumber write in a series on money in politics for NPR, we think of lobbyists stalking Members of Congress, exchanging gifts and money for favourable bits of legislation. Apparently this is reversed as of 2012: Members of Congress stalk lobbyists for contributions.

Why would they do this?

Because over 80% of the time, the candidates who spend the most money on their campaign win. And as this Young Turks segment shows, companies pay into lobbyists who deal with Members of Congress who want to stay in office and through these middlemen strike deals that would see fundraisers to the benefit of the Member of Congress who in turn legislate a certain way.

If the politician doesn’t do it, there would certainly be another who would take them out in the primary given half a chance to feed at the same gilded trough of American “democracy”.