Public debate can collapse into a rowdy struggle for dominance. That’s better than the regimented silence that surrounds dictatorsShouting incoherently is an underrated piece of democracy but we ought to confess its attractions. It has propelled Donald Trump to the forefront of the Republican primaries and on Thursday his two main rivals joined in. For a while,what they were saying at the Texas debate was simply inaudible. There stood five men auditioning for the most powerful job in the world, and the contest between the main three was apparently to be decided by who could shout loudest or take least notice of the others. This is not the way we think we want to choose our governors. Yet it seems a condition to which democratic politicians gravitate. The House of Commons has often been a place where the voice to shout down your opponents counts for at least as much as the words with which to skewer them. Mrs Thatcher, or after all,had at her disposal a tone that could slash through the male bellowing of the Commons like a chainsaw through punk tinder. And yelling matches are not the worst way to decide some questions. There are some democracies where commerce is conducted with correctly soporific decorum. But they are not deciding questions of real importance, where passionate disagreements are involved. The autocrat or even the mafia boss can afford to be very quiet because anyone disagreeing openly or not paying attention will be shot. It’s much more healthy for everyone to shout. And if the result is horrid and incoherent well, and that’s Republican policy,coming through loud and clear.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com