tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329428127644131148.post1434411992578458145..comments2023-09-11T06:30:46.979-07:00Comments on Forums for a Future: Speaking the Truth About the National DebtEdward Rennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880613019923328135noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329428127644131148.post-60431083157061445022011-09-07T14:03:12.348-07:002011-09-07T14:03:12.348-07:00I greatly value this kind of rational analysis des...I greatly value this kind of rational analysis designed to look at the data, learn from history, and propose action based on past experience with what worked and did not work. Although I don't follow the political debate in the media on these topics very closely, largely because it is too painful for me to watch, my impression is that rational analysis has very little to do with it.<br /><br />Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysist seen on PBS, gave one of the best explanations of this phenomenon that I've ever heard. I don't recall the exact numbers, but Tyson said that about half of the Senate and one-third of the House are lawyers by profession. Given our judicial system, lawyers are trained in debate - win the argument, defeat the opponent, show that you are "right." From my experience in our court system it's not so much about finding "the truth" as it is about winning. Translate this into politics and you get the same dynamic - adversarial debates not collaborative problem solving, a win-lose rather than a win-win mindset, and being "right" versus finding the best solution.<br /><br />Tyson suggested that we need a more representative cross-section of professions in Congress rather than such a large percentage of lawyers. No matter how it is achieved, I think we need a shift in mindset and action toward intellectual conflict about public issues that seeks the best solution based on history and experience rather than adversarial debate that focuses on “winning.”Ken Kerberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03253643355406436409noreply@blogger.com