Stop polarizing our discourse

by Preston Manning
Globe and Mail – October 21, 2010

Why is it so difficult to have meaningful debate on health-care reform or

environmental conservation measures in Canada’s political arena, despite the
importance of such issues and the desperate need for action on both fronts?
Ironically, the answer appears rooted in a positive aspect of our national character.
Canadians are generally a moderate and tolerant people – thus the quickest way to
publicly discredit a political opponent in debating an important issue is to
characterize that opponent’s position as “extreme.”
So Candidate Jones declares that she favours national health-care standards
enforced by the federal government – a reasonable position, whether or not you
agree with it. Candidate Smith, however, reacts in mock horror to this suggestion.
“I can’t believe it! Jones wants to trample on the constitutional rights of the
provinces and establish a federal dictatorship over health care.”
Do we see what Smith is doing? He’s not debating the merits or weaknesses of
Jones’s actual position – he’s ignoring it altogether. Instead, he takes Jones’s
position, pushes it to the extreme, then argues against that extreme.
Smith then declares that he favours a health-care system offering universal
coverage but both public and private health-care insurance, financing and delivery.
Whether or not we agree with this position, it isn’t an unreasonable one, since
more than two dozen industrialized countries offer their citizens such a system.
So how does Jones react to this suggestion? This time, it’s her turn to feign mock
horror. “I can’t believe it! Smith wants to privatize and Americanize the Canadian
health-care system.”
Once again, do we see what Jones is doing? She’s not debating the strengths or
weaknesses of Smith’s actual proposal – she’s ignoring it altogether. Instead, she
takes Smith’s position, pushes it to the extreme, then argues against that extreme.
Within minutes, what was supposed to be a rational debate on an issue of great
concern to Canadians has degenerated into a debate between “a federal health-care
dictatorship” versus “a privatized American-style health-care system” – options
that neither of the candidates nor their parties believe in or advocate. No wonder
Canadian voters – observing such phony debates time and time again – throw up

1
their hands in disgust and conclude that it’s impossible to have an intelligent
discussion on real health-care reform options in the political arena.
This disgust is even greater when the same thing happens to public debate over
issues such as environmental conservation. Candidate Jones and her party are
accused of wanting to destroy the economy in the name of environmental
protection. Candidate Smith and his party are accused of wanting to destroy the
environment in the name of economic development – extreme positions that
neither candidate nor party supports but that become the focus of any public debate
on the environment. No wonder we’re witnessing declining public faith in political
institutions and democratic processes, including elections, when this type of debate
becomes the dominant feature of our political discourse.
So what to do? Three suggestions: First, let’s recognize that this is what’s going on
– a national virtue, the tolerance and moderation of Canadians, is being turned into
a liability for short-term political gains. Thus, whenever you hear a public figure or
their positions being routinely characterized by their opponents and the media as
“extreme,” think twice. There are political extremists in Canadian politics, but 90
per cent of the time, such accusations are false.
Second, if you’re ever called on to chair an all-candidates’ debate during an
election or a political roundtable at a conference, and the “He’s an extremist, she’s
an extremist” exchange breaks out, don’t just sit there – stop the proceedings.
Show the audience exactly what’s going on and threaten to shut down the debate if
it continues. I’ve done this, and it’s been my experience that you won’t get halfway
through your rant before the audience will begin to nod and even applaud –
sending a clear message to the debaters that such inane discourse is unacceptable.
Third, recognize that confrontational, polarized debate between alleged “extremes”
is more newsworthy in the eyes of most media than moderate, nuanced debate over
real positions. So heavily discount media reports of political debates, especially
during elections, and “go to source” for information on the actual positions of the
parties and the candidates. In the Internet age, this is much more feasible for the
average citizen than ever before.
Preston Manning is president and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building
Democracy.