Imagine Congress full of skeptics instead of the people in it now.
Do you think there is an appreciable difference in the way skeptics would do political business?
A few things come to my mind:
1) Far fewer platitudes. No more same ‘ol Toastmasters style monologues designed to make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. The closest things would be what we see in TLA. It would be almost embarrassing to speak like Joe Kennedy III on the podium, so few skeptics would do it.
2) More experimental legislation. Claims about what a piece of legislation is supposed to accomplish may be scrutinized more substantively. Lawmakers may frequently call for experimental programs or projects to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposal on a smaller scale (state, local, or a sample population) before going to the next step in the legislative process or implementing it on a larger scale.
3) Less hostile partisan conflict. Most skeptics are careful about what they say and how they say it. This creates a culture of assuming good faith in debate and therefore everyone is careful to not overextend. Skeptics may be more open to doing away with arbitrary procedural rules in parliament. Debate moves more quickly because opposing parties will know they either have something substantitive to say or they don’t.
Any other ideas?
Do you think there is an appreciable difference in the way skeptics would do political business?
A few things come to my mind:
1) Far fewer platitudes. No more same ‘ol Toastmasters style monologues designed to make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. The closest things would be what we see in TLA. It would be almost embarrassing to speak like Joe Kennedy III on the podium, so few skeptics would do it.
2) More experimental legislation. Claims about what a piece of legislation is supposed to accomplish may be scrutinized more substantively. Lawmakers may frequently call for experimental programs or projects to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposal on a smaller scale (state, local, or a sample population) before going to the next step in the legislative process or implementing it on a larger scale.
3) Less hostile partisan conflict. Most skeptics are careful about what they say and how they say it. This creates a culture of assuming good faith in debate and therefore everyone is careful to not overextend. Skeptics may be more open to doing away with arbitrary procedural rules in parliament. Debate moves more quickly because opposing parties will know they either have something substantitive to say or they don’t.
Any other ideas?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/UHb21ox
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire