3 EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Questions to Ask Candidates
We are living in a politically polarized world. It's not the first time and it's probably not even as bad as it has been in the past but with internet and an information overload that is unique to human history, there is now a positive feedback loop of bias confirming "facts" on each side of the political spectrum driving people further and further from the chances of finding common ground.
I recently hosted an event where three individuals vying for the leadership of a provincial party answered questions from the audience. I was terrified that nobody would ask any questions and my event would have looked elementary (I did host it in an elementary school though so perhaps there was no escaping that perception). In order to ensure that there were ample questions I made a mad dash, asking any question that came to my mind. It wasn't until I returned home that night that I realized I missed a huge opportunity to ask questions that I believed were of extreme importance.
I value viewpoint diversity and balance. I don't think any of us want to see "the other side" get complete control, so to avoid that we need to be open to the fact that we also need to limit the power that our side has if we gain control. Perhaps no one has made more headway in the research and promotion of viewpoint diversity than moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. I was mulling over notes that I have written while listening to his appearances on podcasts like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, or his Ted Talks, or while reading his book the Righteous Mind, and in these notes I found some ideas that are key to bringing more diversity of thought and forcing more collegiality in government.
Here are some questions that I suggest asking any candidate or politician at election time. Ask the questions and post the responses. Many candidates will have terrible answers and we need to let them know that this is something that regardless of ideology or party, we unitedly demand as an electorate.
1) What will you do to prevent ideological bias from taking over the policy forming process?
We need to hold our elected officials/ aspiring elected officials accountable on how they plan to deliver policy that is based on evidence and not ideology. One political party will win the election but that party will form a government that will govern us all. Will candidates commit to bipartisan committees? Will they be open to checks and balances? Will they present the pros and cons of the legislation they are promoting so that people can have informed opinions? Will they allow open votes among their caucus so that a constituency that is for or against a bill can have that voice expressed even if it goes against the party's ideology?
Policy can be put into place to incentivize governments to take other perspectives and opinions in to account. No legislation is 100% full-proof. Policy that benefits some will most likely cost someone else, so we need governments to be transparent about the costs of their decisions and then they can give us the argument of why we should move forward with the idea anyways.
2) How will you promote collegiality between different political groups in (parliament, legislature, etc.)?
Whether it's parliament, legislative assembly, or city council, these individuals are colleagues who need to work together. They should be able to voice concerns and dissenting opinions without reprieve but they should also be able to work together to get legislation passed. This, like in any organization, requires trust and teamwork. They need to be able to find out a way to disagree with each other but remain committed to working together. Officials should be encouraged to have more interpersonal cross-group contact. As they work more closely together and gain relationships they will be more likely to move beyond biases. Imagine the example they would set if we saw conservatives and liberals, libertarians and communists, sharing a meal together in an act of collaboration and fraternity.
3) On what common goals would you most likely be willing to work with colleagues from other political groups to find bipartisan solutions?
One of the best ways to bring conflicting sides together is to have superordinate goals. These are objectives that both parties can get behind. A common enemy or target. For better or worse, the United States, especially New York was incredibly united immediately after 9/11. I remember a moment in high school when some guys from a rival school came to ours to confront one of our guys. It almost escalated to near warfare and would have been quite the brawl if it weren't for police but one thing is for sure, that afternoon, our school was united. Dorks, jocks, and everyone in between were high fiving to express loyalty. In an otherwise highly socially divided school, we found a common cause/enemy and achieved, albeit briefly, the binding sense of unity.
Parties might have varying ideas as to how to solve certain problems but I would like to see parties identify the key issues of our society as superordinate goals, objectives that transcend party dogma and vendetta. We all want a stronger economy. We want safer schools and roads. We want better education and health care. And guess what! We need ideas from all sorts of different philosophies and economic models to help us truly improve.
So the next time there is an election in your area. Please ask candidates these questions and take note. Post their answers online so that when they get elected we can hold them accountable. Sometimes I feel like I don't particular care who wins the election as long as they are willing to work with the other side and respect other viewpoints. The sad thing is, I'm not sure if there is anyone in politics who is.
I recently hosted an event where three individuals vying for the leadership of a provincial party answered questions from the audience. I was terrified that nobody would ask any questions and my event would have looked elementary (I did host it in an elementary school though so perhaps there was no escaping that perception). In order to ensure that there were ample questions I made a mad dash, asking any question that came to my mind. It wasn't until I returned home that night that I realized I missed a huge opportunity to ask questions that I believed were of extreme importance.
I value viewpoint diversity and balance. I don't think any of us want to see "the other side" get complete control, so to avoid that we need to be open to the fact that we also need to limit the power that our side has if we gain control. Perhaps no one has made more headway in the research and promotion of viewpoint diversity than moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. I was mulling over notes that I have written while listening to his appearances on podcasts like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, or his Ted Talks, or while reading his book the Righteous Mind, and in these notes I found some ideas that are key to bringing more diversity of thought and forcing more collegiality in government.
Here are some questions that I suggest asking any candidate or politician at election time. Ask the questions and post the responses. Many candidates will have terrible answers and we need to let them know that this is something that regardless of ideology or party, we unitedly demand as an electorate.
1) What will you do to prevent ideological bias from taking over the policy forming process?
We need to hold our elected officials/ aspiring elected officials accountable on how they plan to deliver policy that is based on evidence and not ideology. One political party will win the election but that party will form a government that will govern us all. Will candidates commit to bipartisan committees? Will they be open to checks and balances? Will they present the pros and cons of the legislation they are promoting so that people can have informed opinions? Will they allow open votes among their caucus so that a constituency that is for or against a bill can have that voice expressed even if it goes against the party's ideology?
Policy can be put into place to incentivize governments to take other perspectives and opinions in to account. No legislation is 100% full-proof. Policy that benefits some will most likely cost someone else, so we need governments to be transparent about the costs of their decisions and then they can give us the argument of why we should move forward with the idea anyways.
2) How will you promote collegiality between different political groups in (parliament, legislature, etc.)?
Whether it's parliament, legislative assembly, or city council, these individuals are colleagues who need to work together. They should be able to voice concerns and dissenting opinions without reprieve but they should also be able to work together to get legislation passed. This, like in any organization, requires trust and teamwork. They need to be able to find out a way to disagree with each other but remain committed to working together. Officials should be encouraged to have more interpersonal cross-group contact. As they work more closely together and gain relationships they will be more likely to move beyond biases. Imagine the example they would set if we saw conservatives and liberals, libertarians and communists, sharing a meal together in an act of collaboration and fraternity.
3) On what common goals would you most likely be willing to work with colleagues from other political groups to find bipartisan solutions?
One of the best ways to bring conflicting sides together is to have superordinate goals. These are objectives that both parties can get behind. A common enemy or target. For better or worse, the United States, especially New York was incredibly united immediately after 9/11. I remember a moment in high school when some guys from a rival school came to ours to confront one of our guys. It almost escalated to near warfare and would have been quite the brawl if it weren't for police but one thing is for sure, that afternoon, our school was united. Dorks, jocks, and everyone in between were high fiving to express loyalty. In an otherwise highly socially divided school, we found a common cause/enemy and achieved, albeit briefly, the binding sense of unity.
Parties might have varying ideas as to how to solve certain problems but I would like to see parties identify the key issues of our society as superordinate goals, objectives that transcend party dogma and vendetta. We all want a stronger economy. We want safer schools and roads. We want better education and health care. And guess what! We need ideas from all sorts of different philosophies and economic models to help us truly improve.
So the next time there is an election in your area. Please ask candidates these questions and take note. Post their answers online so that when they get elected we can hold them accountable. Sometimes I feel like I don't particular care who wins the election as long as they are willing to work with the other side and respect other viewpoints. The sad thing is, I'm not sure if there is anyone in politics who is.
Comments
Post a Comment