• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Because we all have shared interests in pressing issues…
Home 
SE Video 
About 
Contact SharedEmergency 
Changing the Discourse in Washington-“Questions tothe President”
2009 September 11tags:Communication,Congress,Debate,Government,Journalism,Media, Newspapers,Obama Administration,Presidency,Public Issues, Questions,The Little Guy,The Presidency   by Mitch Chester The unfortunate incident during President Obama’s health care address to a joint session of Congress on September 9 involving shouting from theCongressman from South Carolina, was, no doubt, “inappropriate andregrettable.”
The encounter also points out a greater problem, and a largeropportunity.
 
We need to see Washington luminaries actuallyaddressing each other in spontaneous and substantive ways, where
 constructive
exchanges are encouraged.
Instead of interrupting a criticalnational address with rude and insulting words, those who disagree should be able to communicateon a higher level and in an accountable way, on therecord.The incident highlights a unique opportunity for real change in the way our leaders communicate with each other. If Members of Congress disagreewith the President, the world should be able to witness them seriouslydebating specific points. We can then decide who has the better position,and understand the basis for public positions and platforms that are often phrased in mere headlines without any foundation.
It is ironic that in such an open society, the American public rarelygets to see the President talking,
 actually having a dialogue,
with members of the opposition party.
Such exchanges usually occur behindclosed doors, whether it be in the Oval Room of the White House or private rooms on Capitol Hill.For most citizens, the closest thing to watching the two sides actually conversing and listening to each other occurs every four years whenPresidential elections loom. Otherwise they have to compare press conferences and blogs against media appearances and media releases andrely too much,
way too much
, on political pundits. The Sunday talk shows are too limited in time and guests, to be a meaningful stage for substantive exchanges viewed by the American people between the opposing parties. Published OpEd pieces pitting one view point againstanother are rare, and not widely read.Perhaps the British have it somewhat right…it’s called“Questions to the Prime Minister,” (QPM)when the Prime Minister meets members of Parliament for what is envisioned as a debate. Referred to as a“Constitutional Convention,”pointed and tough questions are asked andinsightful (and quick) responses are often given. Often irreverent and sometimes non-diplomatic, the sessions (which can be viewed onCSPAN) offer the voters the opportunity to hear candid arguments and accusations, and see what lies behind many of the issues and political positions in a way that even the Fourth Estate does not afford through the conduit of reporters asking questions.
Bluntly stated, QPM is another chance to understand what government is up to. We should adopt a modified version here.
 This idea is not new. During the Clinton Administration, there was talk of creating an American edition of QPM, but it never reached fruition.
Prime Minister’s Questions…An American version is worth exploring.
My Account My Dashboard New Post Edit Post Blog Info
Search WordPress.com Blogs
 
Search
Page 1of 14Changing the Discourse in Washington-“Questions to the President” «9/14/2009http://sharedemergency.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/changing-the-discourse-in-washington-...
 
One recent commentator, John Freehery (who worked for Republicans in Congress) wrote that the “President had little interest in subjectinghimself to that kind of ridicule on a weekly basis.”There is a compelling argument, however, for revisiting the idea for an American (and more respectful) form of the British practice.
First,
if proper rules of decorum are established, questioning need not venture into ridicule and heckling can be banned. Just as both houses of Congress have rules about what their members can and cannot do, such rules can be established for “President’s Questions,” strengthened bysanctions in the event of inappropriate behavior, to ensure civility and meaningful discussion. Respect for the Presidency should, and must, bea guiding principle of the debate.
Second,
the encounters can be limited to once every quarter. There is no need for a weekly forum, and can be 60 or 90 minutes in duration. InBritain, Prime Minister’s Questions are weekly for much of the year. That is too often for America, given the demands on the White House, butan exchange every 3 months would foster greater citizen participation in the little understood governmental decision making process.
Third,
and most compelling, it would allow both sides to smoke out rumors and unsubstantiated charges in a publicly aired discussion to get past all the rhetoric and into the real and relevant guts of key issues. Think how quickly the “Death Panels” proclaimed as “fact” could bedebunked by a President responding in an articulate fashion to his accusers in spontaneous and lively discourse.
Fourth,
such sessions would educate the public, from school children to senior citizens, about the merits of each side’s positions, since eachside could be heard talking to each other in which should be an unrehearsed forum. “President’s Questions” could be a showcase for debate,and an opportunity to infuse new opinions into the big issues of the day…directly to the top level of government.This vehicle is so valuable it is used not only in the United Kingdom, but in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, NorthernIreland, Wales, India, Sweden and is being suggested in Israel, according toWikipedia. No doubt, there are problems with the presentation and evolution of Questions to the Prime Minister. On July 16, 2009, Prime Minister GordonBrown said his weekly exchanges with the British House of Commons lack serious debate in a “sensible and reasonable way” and is “not the vehicle”for a non-party political discussion.
While no format is perfect, surely acommission of government leaders, political science professors andournalists can fashion a procedure that will improve on the existingBritish tradition and bring it to a new and highly responsible level inWashington.
 Instead of hearing just “you lie,” such a meeting would allow the accuser to back up and expand on his or her statement, and afford the President adecent chance to respond.
“President’s Questions” would promote anintelligent discussion…the “serious debate” Gordon Brown seeks, andnot the incivility and sound bite we witnessed from a mistaken (andnow apologetic) Congressman during Wednesday’s Presidentialaddress.Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
 
Today’s Lesson: Truth Panels and Censorship
 
Sec. Sebelius Takes Your Questions On Health Care, Abortion & Rep. Joe Wilson 
 Never can outgrow mom 
Parsing Obama Edit This from
→
 Communication,Communications,Congress,Enlightenment,Exchanging Ideas,Health Care,Issues,Journalism,Media,Obama Administration,Public Issues,Questions,The Presidency  2 Responsesleave one
→
 1.
 
Page 2of 14Changing the Discourse in Washington-“Questions to the President” «9/14/2009http://sharedemergency.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/changing-the-discourse-in-washington-...
 
2009 September 12Bob permalink  Mitch: I think you right-on. It is true: we never see the constructive interaction, both pro and con, with the President. I think we should,too. BobReply edit 2.2009 September 12Ellis  permalink   Just like loving families resort to conduct and verbal intercourse they’re ashamed of when economic stress plagues their house, so doesthe nation.Our resources are no longer dwindling at a rate that can be ignored. They are pouring out in flumes from between the seams of our entitlements and rights-nee-privileges.Where once it was easy and almost credible for the social do-gooders to scoff at “trickle-down economics” and propose “trickle-up” practices—suggesting that less-advantaged people who were given money to spend would stimulate the economy—the results of suchthinking are now biting them in the butts. And the need to face the fact that the only way to stimulate the economy is to support the businesses that produce the jobs—as well as the products and services consumers can buy, once they have those jobs.The stridency we see in government is merely a reflection of fear and frustration because the money is running out. And our legislatorswho have been playing musical chairs with the offices they occupy are still standing when the music has stopped. (Why do you think there was such a rush of savvy Republicans for the door after the end of the last election cycle?)You’d be surprised how genteel and statesmanlike legislators can become when the only argument is about whether they can afford anational arts program or a journey to the moon.ETReply edit 
Leave a Reply
Logged in asMitch Chester .Logout » 
Comment:
 
Note:
You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will
never
be published.Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS You are the author of this post.
Shared Emergency Radio
 
Submit Comment
Page 3of 14Changing the Discourse in Washington-“Questions to the President” «9/14/2009http://sharedemergency.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/changing-the-discourse-in-washington-...
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...