Skip to main content

Open government and full disclosure in the bright sunshine are civic ideals that deserve our constant attention. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons in the national interest to temporarily keep government actions from public disclosure, but people should still have the right to talk about what they know of those government actions and to continue to demand disclosure. Foreclosing debate on certain government actions has a chilling effect in other areas where debate is not only warranted, but urgently needed.

Shutting down debate also limits the acquisition and development of rhetorical intelligence.  If you can't understand why your claim isn't evidence and why your evidence isn't proof, or worse, why an opponent's arguments win even though they shouldn't, you are vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.  The best way to hone those skills is with open and vigorous debate that lets in the sunshine of truth.

A.  The Need for Public Skepticism

Citizens are right to be concerned about unwarranted influence on government by organized cliques whose interests don't include them.  It's right to demand that the government prove that its decisions that cause harm to the public in general, or to certain sectors of the public, were not instigated or abetted by cliques or lobbies acting in secret and against the public interest.  That these types of corrupt activities have happened in the past is beyond dispute; to some extent they are probably part and parcel of politics and cannot be eradicated completely.  But they can be limited by vigorous civic oversight, skepticism and inquiry, which forms the key, if not our only, means of public control of government power outside of elections.  We the public neglect one of our few curbs on power at our peril.  

B.  The Need for Open Debate

Any creative knows that there are many false starts and mistakes on the way to a masterpiece.  Any writer knows that if they let their internal critic edit before a word is written, then no words will be written. Any brainstorming session by definition limits criticism of ideas until all of the ideas and their follow-on ideas are on the table.  Open debate will always contain bad ideas along with the good ones.  Some ideas will be beyond help, but others will have a kernel of legitimacy that was simply poorly articulated. Discussion with an informed, articulate and civil opponent is the best way to improve arguments, ideas, and conclusions.

C.  The Need for Rhetorical Intelligence

Examine the circumstances of a claim to gauge its reliability. What is its originating source?  What other motivations could that source have to make those claims?  People often take at face value claims that further research shows originated with committed ideological partisans.  Look at the source first, then look at the claim. Even partisan claims that are fundamentally accurate have almost certainly been twisted to the disadvantage of the opponent, and important information left out.  Partisan claims always need to be evaluated along with information from the other side(s) of the debate.  Even neutral claims deserve scrutiny - sloppy scholarship, printing errors, and misquotes do happen.  Also check the reasoning behind the claim, if possible.  Sometimes even the brilliant, ethical, and revered have a bad day.

It also pays to be aware of rhetorical tricks that are illegitimately persuasive, like pixellating, where a complex event is broken down into small manageable pieces, and each piece evaluated in isolation.  If each piece, or even one seemingly critical piece, has a plausible alternative explanation, the whole matter is dropped because people don't look at all the pieces in totality again.  This trick works because almost any isolated event can be given a plausible alternative explanation.  But just like a cheating significant other can explain away late nights, changed appearance, odd phone calls, unfamiliar purchases, etc., sooner or later the betrayed stops being a chump and realizes that, while each of those excuses might have been believable in isolation, when you put them all together there is only one reasonable conclusion.  

D.  The Need for Sunshine (Public Skepticism plus Open Debate plus Rhetorical Intelligence)

Public skepticism is a more effective curb on government power when it is informed, well-reasoned, and supported by evidence. Open debate allows not only for good ideas to be shared, and bad or poorly formed ideas to be improved (or discredited and discarded), it also allows for the exposition of tricks and influencing circumstances that are motivating some of the bad or poorly formed ideas.  Open debate improves the critical reasoning skills of both participants and observers, and yields vetted, filtered,  more reliable information.  

We need sunshine to illuminate the truth about what our government does in our names.  We need more debate, not less.  Even if the effort to swat away bad ideas is an annoying chore, the cost of the alternative to open debate is too high for a free society to bear.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site