Welcome to the Demand Question Time blog.
Two weeks ago, we watched as President Obama and the Republican members of the House of Representatives engaged in a frank and respectful question-and-answer session, unmoderated and live on television. It was a moment of constructive civility and substantial debate at a time when the national conversation often seems to consist of politicians and pundits talking past each other or sloganeering. And so we started the Demand Question Time petition a few days later, determined to push both sides to make this a regular tradition.
To our amazement, nearly 20,000 people have signed up already. We’ve never seen such a diverse coalition: Respected leaders from the right to the left, activists from the Tea Party movement to the anti-Iraq War movement, campaign strategists for the Democrats and the Republicans, and many leading journalists, bloggers, academics and regular folks have joined the Demand Question Time call. Judging from all the press we’ve earned, we’ve started a lively and important national conversation.
We’re working on a range of steps that we can take together to build support for Question Time, and plan to roll those out soon. The first step is this: we’re asking you to help us figure out how we build this effort. Use the comment thread below to introduce yourself, say a bit about why you signed the petition, and offer your thoughts on how to grow the movement. We’ll be listening! In the meantime, spread the word and share your ideas.
Micah Sifry, Mike Moffo, David Corn, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke, Glenn Reynolds
Steering committee, Demand Question Time
There isn’t a lot to cheer about these days in American political life. Soundbite candidate debates and prepackaged press conferences provide little opportunity for substantive dialogue, or for that matter real human contact and communication.
Question Time would allow the President and both parties a dignified opportunity for extended conversation–one unmediated by preening journalists. It would also provide real drama and accountability. Imagine if President Reagan were subject to question time in Iran-Contra, or President Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal.
This idea is long overdue.
The world’s oldest democracy is sclerotic. One reason is a collective childishness that places a premium on strutting and preening, and obscures what is really at stake in political differences. Question Time is a simple step toward improvement.
Evan Bayh is telling us that politics is broken. But is this news? In 1992, EJ Dionne published “Why Americans Hate Politics: The Death of Democracy” — overviewing many of these same issues. Norm Ornstein’s “Broken Branch” (2006), or Joe Klein’s “Politics Lost” (2006) or Ronald Brownstein’s “The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship has Paralyzed Washington” (2007) — and many other books — have gone over these issues in detail.
This is not a short-term problem — and if we believe these analysts, the problems are more systemic than they are ethical. The way it looks to me, we need an “outside the box” solution. Trying to fix this situation with legislation or a Constitutional amendment looks to me like “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.
I signed this petition because it seems to me we need a powerful and highly inclusive (and internet-based) solution, that overcomes the incentives for polarization, and creates a way for “the people” to come together — maybe something like an all-faceted “common cause” that could gather the collective intelligence of this nation and exert a powerful lobbying effect on these wayward legislators. Yes, they need to come together. Yes, they need to talk. Yes, they need to work together. We need to create an energy-wave that can make this possible. Demand Question Time is a start.
Bruce Shumann,
You said that “we need a powerful and highly inclusive . . . solution, that overcomes the incentives for polarization, and creates a way for “the people” to come together — maybe something like an all-faceted “common cause” that could gather the collective intelligence of this nation.
If the common cause is hiring / electing our representatives, then what you have described for single member districts is Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting.
Not to start an off topic thread here, but the U.S.A. is a democratic republic and not the oldest democracy. The worlds oldest democracy is Switzerland.
The question time move disintermediates the news media, and allows political discussion to take place without news media spin and filtration. I think that’s likely to be good for democracy: More citizen involvement, fewer proxies.
Question time would be a huge step in the right direction, but I don’t think we should be too ambitious about what it will accomplish on its own:
1. It likely will not decreases the number of proxies between citizens and their elected officials This would likely be a gathering of political leaders, like what occurs in Britain.
2. There’s no way that it would remove the selective filtering that occurs. Think ’spin-alley’ after presidential debates.
3. Talking points will still be in huge effect, and will only be avoided if they have political opponenents who are able to capitalize on the inherent weaknesses of talking points.
I think that the value, and the reason everyone should support it is that we currently almost never see our elected leaders discussing issues together. There are all sorts of benefits to having regular times where we are allowed to see their interactions and the arguments they use and the stances they take.
1. When it comes time to vote you will have much more information about how a politician interacts with others, the sorts of things that are most important to them and the quality of their thougts.
2. When people are forced to speak to each other regularly it becomes harder to dismiss them without coming off in a negative light. I think that the quality of the interactions we see in Congress will stop declining as it has over my adult life.
3. I think it will make us feel better about our country. I think a lot of people are pretty down on things now and for good reasons. We need something like this to start building faith in our government again.
I think of these issue the most important should be to design question time such that talking points become . If that can be accom
Question Time in the British Parliament shows that it is no panacea, that public Q&A can be a tool of partisan politics rather than real debate, but at least it is an opportunity for principled politicians to raise the level of the dialogue. With President Obama seeking to engage the opposition, he would have a chance to – well, give them a chance – to articulate reasoned objections (that he could in turn attempt to answer) rather than simply trying to block him at every turn.
The dialogue we saw a few weeks ago was a hopeful sign. I’d like to see this happen long term.
However, for this to work, we need members of both parties to stand up for what is right rather than what is politically expedient. I am appalled at Congress; something must be done; this is a start.
With regard to “standing up,” I strongly suggest that everyone read Jim Fallows’ advice to Evan Bayh in the Atlantic: http://bit.ly/d1IR9s
I think Bayh should team up with a retiring Republican rep whose fed up too and let the American people rally behind them. The vast majority of Americans are not politcal extremists, but they haven’t identified the common ground on which to unite. I think that unification needs to come at a level above politics. Stay away from stances on particular policies and instead unite on the types of leaders that we need (and don’t need) in Washington. We need leaders who get informed and then vote for what is best for Americans as a whole, rather than always with their party or with the lobbyists.
Kathryn, I like your comment. We have issues and can discuss them. BVut we need leaders that will stand up for what is right and good for america and comply with our constitution. we need our leaders to hold these discussions openly so we con see where they stand.
Tim O’Reilly,
Thanks for the link to the James Fallows’ “advice to Evan Bayh” article in The Atlantic. ( http://bit.ly/d1IR9s )
No one expects that our leaders can sit down together and sort everything out in one session. But democracy is premised on the idea that it’s possible for people who disagree to come to a common understanding. Obama and the Congressional leadership have an opportunity to model what that looks like.
As a next step, what about a national call-in day where we pair up conservatives and progressives and they call Congressional leaders together? Fun, easy, and the message is conveyed in the nature of the call itself — if we can do this, you can too.
I like the idea. I filled out the confidential survey.
Comprehensive CRS report on question time, including a comparison of question periods in other countries, a legislative history of proposed question times in the U.S., a pro/con section on the merits of question time, and a discussion of various issues that would have to be settled:
http://tinyurl.com/ycg2oug
Your link does not appear to be working. Please try again.
The link should open a dialog box that allows for the opening/saving of a .pdf file. Just tested it, and it worked fine. Still having problems?
cr
The link worked fine for me. Very substantive review of the Question Time concept, thanks.
Chris,
Thanks for the link to the CRS (Congressional Reseach Service ) document. The link worked for me.
Packaging a set of links or embedded streaming videos to useful examples of this type of format from other nations would be helpful for those that would like to spread the word.
Most people I know have never heard of the BBC’s “Question Time” and are unsure of what this idea is about. Add to that the fact that most politically themed messages that end up in an inbox, friend-feed, or twitter account are garbage and you have an education problem. Those that I have been able to show clips from the BBC show and the parliamentary skewerings of the British PM have immediately gotten the idea. As it is now there is no easy way to share this idea with those unacquainted with the international media.
CONFRONT these fools via email and postal mail and DEMAND written responses. Just talking to them does not provide any documentation of their lies.
I have done both, and have had absolutely no response. Washington is tone-deaf. They listen to no one but their own cronies. Sorry, I’m getting more cynical by the day.
Right on point, Gloria Roberts. Been there, done that and when receives “Thank you for contacting”, it’s a form letter. In essence saying ‘one of the peons made contact’, followed by laughter.
…”and when ONE receives”
I’d like to see a couple of videos that juxtapose ’soundbite’ answers to policy questions with Question Time-type answers to the same questions, to illustrate the dramatic difference in understanding that (ought to) come from the latter.
Question time reminds me of how the British Parliament ruthlessly interrogates the prime minister over his policies, minus the booing. My only concern is that this forum isn’t sufficient to debate the finer details of policy, only broad concepts. Question time can force politicians to back up their assertions by citing their sources, which is extremely important given the misinformation out there. For example, Republicans still haven’t given the name of a credible economist who believes we should stop government spending. Americans get much of their news from “analysts” on TV and talk radio hosts, who gain listeners by through hyperbole. Question time must be used to correct those distortions.
There’s something beautiful about settling differences. Both parties act like opposing teams most of the time. They forget that we’re really all in this together.
I think it would bring us together to bypass the designer soundbytes and let politicians speak from the heart.
There is no reason that if Obama says yes Republicans say no, and vice versa.
Our country is on fire and soon to be burning out, it’s time for these people to stand up and do the right thing. It’s time to put politics aside.
Our voices must be heard and our concerns answered and acted upon. Also the loudest voice is not necessarily the right voice.
I, too, am concerned about this becoming a tool of partisan politics, but I’m hopeful that it will shed a transparent light on the issues – both policy and political.
However, I wonder if we could come up with a name other than Question-Time? Since MSNBC did a full show on “Question-Time,” I’m quite sure our conservative cohorts will think its a liberal plot of some sort.
How about Independent Question Time or Independent Solutions.
This would divorce ourselves from the typical Democrat vs Republican ideology which is the root problem in Congress today.
The majority of the population is centrist in nature
Candidates run to the center, get elected and immediately get forced into voting in a party block. Thus, nothing gets done and it’s all about making the other party look bad. The time is ripe for strong third party, solution oriented control.
Are we using social networking to garner attention? This movement is begging for facebook groups.
I have been following politics since the Kennedy administration, yes I was a kid then. However, it was the Nixon administration that truly turned politics into the blood sport that it has now become. It seems a minor step to take, question time, for us to begin to return some civility to the process. It would move us not only between political parties but more importantly between the parties and the voters. We have become a nation of sound bites, not of thought out responses. This idea of question time will move us into a realm of thought out responses, quiet discourse and not yelling at each other. I firmly believe that a regular period of question time would be a first step in changing our politicians into real statesmen and not just political hacks. It is an idea whose time has come.
Let’s face it: A parliamentary-style question time would make it incumbent on our politicians to handle their affairs transparently, for this would be the public smell test. All eyes will be on them, and—who knows—this might even acculturate the public to demand more from Commission for Presidential Debates than some scripted garbage.
I am doing more than signing a petition. But I need help.
I signed the petition because it is a great idea. But the idea of civilized, substantive debates is more than just something I support. I am betting my future on it. I am leaving my law practice after 17 years to pursue something I believe this country needs – and deserves.
On July 12, 2009 I filmed a pilot for The You Defend It Debate Series at Binghamton University. It eliminates spin and talking points by outlawing them. A retired New York State Supreme Court Trial Justice presides over it. The rules don’t allow for debaters to even mention the other side – they have to show up with THEIR OWN SOLUTION – and defend it. The topic was “The Proper Role of a Supreme Court Justice”, and we debated abortion, gun control, the death penalty, eminent domain, gay marriage, etc. And we did it in a manner worthy of the issues – and worthy of the Americans whose lives are affected by decisions made by the Supreme Court. You can see it at http://www.youdefendit.com.
I have been rejected by CNN and FOX. I am approaching every other outlet.
There is no reason why we should have to wait four years between nationally televised, prime-time debates on national issues. And we now know it can happen.
If you can help me get this on or have any suggestions at all, reach me at my email rkilmer@statestreetlaw.com or by phone at 607.725.8150.
It’s time.
Rob Kilmer,
Thanks for the link. I watched the debate video clip, but had trouble with the radio clips.
Why don’t you try public local community access TV stations. It’s not CNN or FOX but it might be a start.
Part of the reason that misinformation is so rampant in political dialog is, in my opinion, because both sides talk past the other. It seems that no point is ever “argued” with facts, rather, it is preached in a narrative.
Putting the actors in the same room and “forcing” ideas to collide instead of simply moving past the other will help clarify fact, and , more importantly, dispense with the fiction.
Well put, William. When innuendo and sniping go unanswered, they continue. We have a political culture of gossip, not dialogue.
We can’t rely on the mainstream media or the blogosphere to create a more constructive political environment. If we want to stop the slide of our political discourse, we need to get off our butts and demand more from ourselves and our politicians. Question time would be a good first start.
It’s time to throw our elected leaders into the pit of real dialogue about our Nation’s future, while allowing the American people to bear witness to the process through an unfiltered lens.
Your use of the #questiontime hashtag on Twitter gets mixed in with tweets from citizens of countries that already do have question time. Consider using #questiontimeUSA or some other way of distinguishing it.
Question Time is an inspired idea, and I would like to see it taken beyond just the President and Congress. The Panetta Institute in Monterey hosts a lecture series, gets knowledagble people holding different views and brings them together on stage in front of a live audience for a moderated discussion of the issues. Its lively, informative, and always civil. If we could replicate this kind of thoughtful discussion around the country, we could a. get people away from the television set and into an auditorium with their community — and really make this an extensive grass roots movement.
Just have to respond (I grew up in Monterey) — and I do feel that this theme needs to become a broad grass-roots movement. Yes, we need to be talking to each other in person across all borders and boundaries — and I also feel that the internet offers us a powerful way to organize and interconnect a movement like this. The CRS .pdf on the history of Question Time shows that this approach by itself may not be enough to overcome critical problems in American governance. We need an inspired and empowered citizenry coming together to take responsibility for this country, not simply leaving it up to a few elected politicians and hoping they behave themselves — when it is so clear there are major incentives that perpetuate gridlock.
Every so often, I’ll watch Prime Minister’s Questions on C-SPAN on Sunday night. I did so a few days ago, and it’s amazing how much substantive debate PM Gordon Brown can engage in over the course of a half-hour. He must have taken a dozen or so questions from David Cameron and MP’s from all three parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat).
Would the spontaneity be gone, as Axelrod said? Yes, but that’s not the point of doing “President’s Question Time” (my idea for its name). We saw Harry Reid kill that spontaneity by calling on every Democratic Senator with a tough reelection bid this year during the Obama-Senate Q&A. The only really interesting response was to Blanch Lincoln.
The reasons we need “President’s Question Time” is for us to have real debate in Washington, not just Senators and Representatives reading statements on the floor. The House Republican retreat in Baltimore showed us the nascent model for an American version of Prime Minister’s Questions. Get both the House and Senate together once a week (Wednesdays at 7:00 PM?) for an hour of back-and-forth with the president. Have both parties alternate when asking away, with Speaker Pelosi recognizing them. Set a strict time limit for each question (30 seconds?) and answer (one minute?). That should allow for two dozen or so questions to be answered every week. Most importantly, don’t leave it up to Reid, McConnell, Pelosi and Boehner to pre-select who gets to ask questions that week. Let it get a little rowdy, with Members shouting for attention. They need to blow off some steam and have fun debating.
Question Time is about perfecting the market–that is, the market of ideas. What a conservative notion, right? It would force each side to place its policies and arguments up against those of the other side, and allow each side to challenge the ideas of the other. This would create a better competition than the usual back-and-forth of spin and talking points. The president and the opposition would be compelled to perform at a high level in such a high-profile forum. The public would be able to judge, as journalists, bloggers, and independent groups factcheck the Qs and As. Without filter or prefab arrangements, this would be an unplugged debate, with each side directly presenting its best case.
Since there is this tendency toward “spin and talking points”, what do you think of having the Q and As around particular topics (like the healthcare one). Being able to jump around lends itself to drive by attacks rather than productive conversation. Unfortunately there is no way to prevent the prefab arrangements by the questioners.
Just curious, why do you view it as a competition rather than a collaboration?
Hmm. Yeah. Ideally you get at least a little bit of both.
Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting provides politicians (during campaigns) and voters (when they vote) with an opportunity both for unfettered competition and unfettered cooperation.
Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting is the only voting procedure consistant with a determination of the consent of the governed and the only voting procedure that closely follows the typical (unbiased) hiring process.
After all those we elect to government office, whether that office is an administrative or a representative office, are supposed to be public servants engaged in public service.
Hi,
This a great idea and I’m glad you’re championing it, but you need to ‘up your game’ in terms of the blog and spreading the word. For example, it would be nice to have something to embed on my facebook page.
Cheers,
Ben
Sure this a great idea. It might even bring up points from the opposite side that deserve consideration. Somehow, though, since corporate news rules (having the gold, you know), it will take people like Mr. Corn and others on the steering committee; those folks who are allowed to appear on corporate news once in a while, to campaign for this on TV.
I say that because you can tell that the polls reflect actual crap constantly put out on TV. For example, “Obama doesn’t deserve re-election”, as if he has harmed the country. (sheesh!)
So, we must appear on corporate TV. We must secure a question-time program on FSTV also. Thanks.
The frustration starts with politicians running on specific platforms that they will never get done and know it. A politician has to accomodate the special interest groups that pay for his campaigns, and at the same time play the intermediary role to get his voting constituents some of what they are asking for, a watered down policy that will appease both the special interests and his constituents.
I wish it was that simple, after that comes the disputes with different politicians and different agendas, guess what, now we have gridlock and little or nothing gets done. I like question time because it brings our often, less then sincere politicians together and creates some transperency. Here is a link for campaign reform for those of you who have not seen this.
http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/
I think its time we all sit back for a minute and remember where we were 1 year ago, 2 years ago and even further back. When the system is broken and has been broken for a long time, please do not blame President Obama for it. There is so much that has to be done we can not afford to have a Congress that will not work together to make America better. It really does not matter what political party you belong to, as long as you are doing your best to correct the problems that we have. If you do a good job you’ll be re-elected on you merit and that should be what we judge the Politicians on, not the crap that comes out of their mouths.
Take financial reform, The American public is out some 2 trillion dollars because of the games Wall Street was playing. Well, I think they should be fined until all of that money is repaid to pay off on the deficit. These games have been going on for 20-30 years, its time we get paid back. I think most of the argue that people feel is that the playing field has not been even for a long time and people are getting fed up.
There are a lot of good ideas out there to correct the problems, I have some and you have some. But we all have to be really to compromise to get to a workable situation.
Congress is stymied due to the influence of money (lobbyists, Wall Street, large corporations etc.). Just look at how your representatives vote vs. what they say. Our gov’t has been bought, lock, stock and barrel by these greedy monied interests; we are no longer a democracy but an oligarch run by the few, for the few. The only way to return to a democracy is to get all money out of politics but very few are willing to vote out ALL the representatives. This unrest will eventually lead to revolt and our nation assuming a third world country status.
I would like the debate to go to the basic questions of why health care is needed and get a consensus on the need before continuing on the solutions. see below
Health Care Debate
Define the problems before debating the solutions
_____________________________
The health care debate can go nowhere without consensus on what the problems are that need to be
solved. I suggest discussing and listing the descriptions of the problems one at a time staying open to
all assumptions. There is little to be gained by discussing solutions without coming to some agreement
on what the problems are and where the responsibilities lie.
If there are health care concerns that cannot be properly handled by our current health care system
they can be debated, described and listed for all to review. I believe that if this approach is taken, and
there are situations that fit this scenario, opponents to health care reform may agree there needs to be
a solution and that the solution may require government involvement.
_____________________________
There are some fundamental differences on what the role of the federal government is on social
programs spanning from no influence at all to a 100% government run program.
What we have is a federal government that has had its role increased over the years. This is mostly due
to humanitarian issues such as suffering, unequal opportunities, balance of wealth, etc.
There are legitimate and healthy needs for these different approaches allowing for checks and balances.
There will be those at each extreme that just will not compromise because of their fundamental belief in
what the government’s role should be. On the whole, we as a country have chosen a more middle path.
As we stand at this time we have a government that assumes the role of filling in the social needs that
appear to be left out or not solved by our market driven economy. The main issue is whether or not
health care issues fit into this category.
To argue for or against any health care government involvement without a consensus on what exactly
the needs are, makes the debate difficult at best and divisive.
I would suggest health care discussions be open to defining problems first. Secondly, we need to agree
on what problems or issues are not addressed within our system and then whether or not they should
be. It may seem obvious that all can see the problems, however the arguments over general solutions
distort the clarity of what you are actually trying to solve.
Examples:
• If people are dying because they do not have or cannot get health insurance, is this a problem?
o Is it a problem for all those that do not have insurance or are there situations that could
be agreed upon that do make this a problem?
o Define the areas that can be agreed upon and debate those on the fringe of agreement.
• Is it a problem that the rising costs of health care will greatly increase the future debt?
o Define the causes of this debt and the problems it might create that can be agreed
upon.
o Compare the problems that would be outside market solutions or better handled by
government, etc.
o There will be some debate as to the definition and there will be some compromises, but
without the problems defined there can be little gain in the solutions.
There will certainly be differences in the solutions, responsibilties and the means of funding, but each
proposed solution must address these problems in the most efficient manner. The discussions will then
be on the problems agreed upon, not the ideology of the parties. This must be done for all the
established problems that have warranted a health care debate before a solution can be designed.
One other note: DO NOT blame the other side for causing problems. Stay away from blaming, this is
aggressive and causes defensive behavior that widens the gap which hinders the solution process.
A simple list of the health care problems that the American people could view and comment on would
go a long way to easing the anger and promote civil debate. Perhaps soliciting responses for the
purpose of establishing this list should be:
• Should people die because they could not get or do not have health insurance or their health
care does not cover their illnesses?
• Should health insurance be denied or greatly increased in cost for pre-existing conditions?
• Should health care be dropped if someone is laid off from their job?
• Is it a problem for government to be involved, if someone looses their job and cannot afford the
Cobra insurance?
• Should everyone be required to have insurance?
• Question the need for Medicare and Medicaid?
• Etc., etc
If the average person understood and agreed on the problems, the debate of how to solve them may be
easier.
I strongly support “Question Time.” It brought considerable attention to our elected Representatives and the issues/problems we are facing. I’ve sent my personal recomendations to the President, the Vice President, my Senators and Representative. I agree with those who see Quertion Time as a beginning to continued conversations, in the media and on the Internet. I stronglt brlieve more openness and more communication will provide solutions.
Just a personal note. I grew up in Sam Rayburn’s Congressional District in deep East Texas. Because of his fame and popularity, I learned to follow politics before I started grade school. http://www.famoustexans.com/samrayburn.htm has this to say about Mr. Sam: “Although he was viewed as a loyal “party man,” he retained and exercised an independence of action that occasionally cut sharply across party aims, and though his complete mastery of political process made him a formidable congressional adversary, his fairness and candor within the process brought him respect from both sides of the aisle. Rayburn’s personal integrity was legendary: he accepted no money from lobbyists, he went on only one congressional junket in forty-eight years (he paid his own way), and he even refused travel expenses on speaking tours.” This is consistent with ths stories I’ve heard ALL my life. His name is on the building:
“The Rayburn House Office Building is named after former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn.
It was completed in 1965 with 2.375 million square feet of space and is the largest and newest congressional office building”.
I think we are demanding that the qualities attributed to Mr. Sam should be commonplace with our elected representatives. I believe they will get the message when we treat THEM with those qualities and demand with our votes that they treat each other in this way.
In conjunction with QT, we should involve fact-checking groups such as Factcheck.org and Politifact.com to do QuestionTime followups, where each “factual” assertion made during QT is examined and rated. QT could join groups like these, project VoteSmart, etc. in a coordinated effort to remove the smoke and mirrors from political discourse.
I think the title for this Q&A should be “We the People”, invoking the preamble of the Constitution, reaffirming to all, that we are a nation of laws.
The Q&A should be a civil debate, one speaker at a time and no audience cheering or booing. The last objective may be difficult to achieve in total but should never the less be the objective “rule”. The speakers should be chosen from a random drawing of those that wish to speak and given enough time to prepare their questions.
Q&A’s should take place quarterly between the President : the House and Senate.
Q’s should be selected at random from the Internet community, with appropriate foul language screening applied but allowing the question to be asked, regardless of its potential idiocy.
These Q&A’s need to be televised, with video streaming to the web.
They should be no less than one hour long, ninety minutes would be better.
The President and our other representatives should not be overly occupied with the Q&A sessions, so I am proposing a quarterly Q&A, rather than a more frequent schedule but I would settle for biannual schedule rather than lose the opportunity all together.
I concur with what Todd Gitlin said. The political “childishness that places a premium on strutting and preening” mostly protects politicians from having to engage in substantive debate. Candid, regular and unmediated question and answer meetings between the President and the opposition will be good for both parties, and for the rest of us, too.
I think DQT is great because it makes politicians have to articulate where they stand and why in front of the public. Requiring them to be civil and rational is a real stretch for some. Unfortunately the DQT format doesn’t really lend itself to reaching a solution because there isn’t much time for depth. I would like to recommend that this group propose/support having all Congressional representatives do DQT with their constituents, specifically with people who are not in their party. I think this would be a strong reminder to them that they are there to serve all Americans, not a subset. Sometimes the “right” decision will match their parties beliefs and sometimes it won’t. The real question is how do we get more leaders that are willing to choose balance & stability for America rather than money and a sense of superiority.
I see at least one ambassador from the libertarians already: Glenn Reynolds. I too will add my voice to those who think public Question Time would be a good step towards holding politicians more accountable. Unscripted public Question Time is a proposal all libertarians and all persons of good conscience should support.
I have to say, also, that as a student of history I am touched by the symbolism of this move. Limited government and public accountability of a minimal, night-watchman state is the great legacy of the Anglo-American political tradition. I work towards the day even that can be abolished; but until then, it is fitting that Americans and Britons should continue to learn from each others’ best practices.
The American experiment is over. We’re in debt up to our eyeballs, the banks own whatever the Chinese and the Japanese don’t and we don’t have the freedom to take to the streets so what are you going to do? Vote? Don’t make me laugh.
Too many years of voting against our own interests to stick it to the gays and to “protect” the unborn (screw the women) at the cost of the already born have passed under the bridge, and too many years of being afraid of our own shadows have been wasted – and there’s a price to be paid. There’s always a price to be paid and the price cannot be paid forever by giving yet another tax cut to those who already have more money than God Himself.
10 years down the line, we’ll be lucky if we can keep up with paying just the interest for the money we borrowed to enrich the rich and to kill Muslims for their oil. Go play some golf, hug your children, take your wife out for a nice dinner… don’t waste the little time you do have before we go all in for that Iranian oil that might save our bacon if we can use a”war”create enough jobs here as we try to steal Iranian oil for Conoco P, Chevron, Shell etc even as we find more ways to give money to Halliburton.
And don’t forget to vote Republican – Palin/Beck 2012!!!
We should introduce a sense of the house / sense of the Senate non-binding resolution to draw more support for this effort and bring more national attention.
I wholeheartedly support, A “Question Time”. You shake my hand for my vote and then walk past me, as though I didn’t exist when in office.
The world stands between paradigms: a moment in time between two as of yet, un-reconciled ways of seeing, being and thinking.
The old one is crumbling; it can now longer support itself in a sustainable or ethical manner. Its assumptions about power and control have been usurped by reality. Its mechanisms for regulating itself have become dysfunctional, destroying our planet. It is as if the system is eating itself, consuming each part as it fights for survival. The paradigm we call Hierarchy has lost its common sense and now finds itself eviscerating its common wealth. The underlying social, political and economic structures that have helped us get to where we are today will not get us to where we want to be tomorrow. Trust, a primary ingredient in resilient systems, is all but gone. We, the people, can no longer count on the rules and ways of this paradigm to by themselves transition humankind to a new way of thinking, working, socializing and valuing. To get there will require taking steps in completely reframed ways .
Thankfully, while one paradigm has been busy dying, another has been busy being born. Tremendous pressures to make better, faster decisions and the impossibility to do so responsibly has forged cracks in the existing system, enabling new forms of organization to emerge and gain traction.
Demand questions is a good opening. If we use it correctly … if “we the people” can practice participating in a civil way and using our power correctly … perhaps we can hasten the new paradigm into reality. Instead of Hierarchy it will be Panarchy.
The two political parties operate in their own vacuum/echo chambers which reinforce the beliefs, however misinformed, of both party’s constituencies, while allowing those constituents to ignore or remain unaware of the distortion of their opponents positions and agenda made by those with whom they agree ideologically. This has become exacerbated, starting with Reagan’s abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, and with the exponentially increasing sources of opinion and “information” available via the Internet, Cable TV, Terrestrial Radio, etc. We now live in a world ever more similar to the one experienced by the inhabitants of the Tower of Babel, and I strongly believe that were a forum like Question Time instituted, elected officials would find it much more difficult to engage in hyperbolic if not dishonest rhetorical assertions without risking immediate rebuttal; it would force them to defend their statements and be subjected to much more critical scrutiny regarding their veracity and logical soundness.
I would like to see a weekly televised (C-Span) “Senate Questions for the President”, an hour and a half each week would suffice. Bring all 100 Senators to the floor and give each party ten questions each, alternating between the parties after each question. Limit each question to two minutes and the Presidents response to two minutes. The leader of each party could pick the questioners of their respective party for the week, with ten new questioners each week, therefore only taking five weeks for every Senator to engage the president directly. The president of the senate or the majority leader could manage the time allotted to each side. I would hope that a tradition such as this would encourage those individuals who would aspire to the Presidency to have a well rounded base of knowledge pertaining to our government, its business and our nations history, past, present and future. I would also hope that this tradition would force the two political parties to seek out “qualified” and competent individuals, ones that are actually capable of leading our great nation and not just figureheads, talking heads, puppets and pretty faces. A President that cannot intelligently defend their actions or their parties views and legislative goals has been, and will continue to be an embarrassment to themselves, their party and our country. A well spoken, articulate, knowledgeable and intelligent President does nothing but better our nation, no matter which political party they belong to.
All the dialogue in the world will be for naught unless the motivation provided by money driven election campaigns is removed.This means a system that is totally devoid of any and all financial incentives to detract from the problem solving equation.I leave the devising of such a system to those far wiser than I but I suggest we get on with it muy pronto!
When elected officials run away from live, public debate, we have to wonder what they are hiding. Each side complains the other side isn’t listening. Question time serves the public but should be satisfying to the electeds too, by giving each side a chance to present a position, listen and discuss.
Thomas Jefferson said a Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”
We’re WAY overdue. It’s time to show up as “We the People!”
If the presidential press conference functiioned well (but it doesn’t) if the Sunday morning talk shows had tried to innovate (but they didn’t) if the “gotcha” mentality had started dying out after diminishing returns set in (we wish) if the two-party system in Congress worked even a little bit (nope, not at all) the case for Question Time wouldn’t be as compelling as it is.
That’s one way of putting it. Here’s another: one needs only to quote CNN’s Ed Henry talking about asking President Obama a question in the press version of question time.
See what I mean? It’s sport to him.
I’m tired of hearing that both political parties are inhabiting the same group think echo chamber. It’s up to EVERYONE to counteract that somehow by being verbal even if the media at times is not as verbal as they should be. What I find deeply disturbing is the mainstream media trend of giving tea party members or “Constitution Party” members some sort of platform to vent as if what they are saying is actually normal. Since when is it okay for a political party to claim that only they have the correct interpretation of the Constitution?
I’m sorry if I’m getting political here but it’s insane that these people interpret the Right to bear arms as if it should be “deregulated” when it’s clearly stated in the language: “well regulated”. I live in a state where any loon can carry a gun & that worries me. I’d like to see President Obama tackle that issue as well as the War, Health Care, Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants (& btw…why are two more being built in Georgia?) We need the transparency of both parties talking about these issues in an open forum for all the world to see. We need that exposure so that the media can delve further into what is going on. People are craving this after 8 years of a covert Presidency that neither party actually liked. C-Span should be covering QT on a regular basis…no commentators…just Parliamentary style politics where an audience can see what is really happening.
Hey, forgive me for being picayune, but “Question Time” is actually the wrong reference. The show you refer to is “Prime Minister’s Questions” on C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/Series/Prime-Minister-Questions.aspx. The BBC show “Question Time” is a panel show hosted by David Dimbleby (yes, Dimbleby) and is kind of like “Meet the Press”. Question Time also has been broadcast on C-SPAN during British elections. Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm.
I’m just sayin’.
Ever hear of the fact that you can’t copyright a film title? It’s TRUE. SHOCKER. If this becomes a show, they can just use the logo and throw in the “Super” over the footage of an American Flag. (Oops…American Flag is red, white & Blue just like England’s & England had those colors first! My father was British by the way…No problem with any of this…I’m sure my dad is pleased as punch in his grave-he always said that American politics was a royal mess. This should help a bit…& the Brits ought to be flattered.)
Kyle Henderson,
Thanks for the links. I’ll check them out.
Just a quick heads up: We’ve gotten close to 2000 replies to the survey, which adds up to thousands of suggestions and comments to digest. That’s going to take a little time. (I’m also mostly out of pocket today and tomorrow doing some family stuff.) So, hang tight, we’ll be reporting back soon.
Micah
america really does need question time barring the media nearly becoming its opposite or politicians deciding not to avoid people who might say when they’re stupid or liars question time or something like it is the only hope for more than glimpses of real debate or substance