In computer programming (and related disciplines) we have a principle called modular design. Good software should be written as modules (classes/files/functions), each of which does a small number of related things very well, and does it as independently of other modules as possible. This is also known as loose coupling, high cohesion. The less dependent each module is on other modules, (loose coupling), and the more clearly defined its responsibilities are, (high cohesion), the more robust and maintainable your system is.

An example: You're writing a program that reads input, stores it in a file, and then returns some output the user. Bad design would be to mix all the code for input, storage and output together in one big module. The principle of high cohesion tells us to split the code into at least three modules with clear responsibilities, one for input, one for storage, and one for output. The principle of loose coupling tells us that each of these modules should be as independent of the others as possible: The input module doesn't know or care about how the storage module works, it just assumes that it does. The storage module doesn't know or care about the output module. They're all defined by their responsibilities, "read input", "store data", "show output", and not how they carry them out, and there's a small number of clearly defined relationships between them.

If you now need to change the software, for instance if you need to store data in a database instead of on file, or change the way output is displayed, all you need to do is replace one module with another - one "store data"-module with another "store data"-module which just happens to store data in a different way. If it's all in one big module, there's no end to how complicated it may be to make the same change.

This is the same principle as when you replace your old TV with a new one. The antenna socket doesn't care which brand of TV you've bought, and the power socket doesn't even care if it is a TV, as long as it is "an object which requires power". That's good, modular design. Just plug it in. Bad, non-modular design would require you to hire an electrician every time you installed a new electrical device.

Perhaps it's time to introduce the principle of modular design in politics. Whenever I see a partisan rant, I'm reminded of one of those 500-line functions I'm sometimes unlucky enough to be asked to modify at work, one which tries to do everything at once. "Bush is a liar and a moron, and he looks like a chimpanzee, and why did he go to war against Iraq when they had no wmd's, it's all about oil anyway, and they abandoned Kyoto, did you know that the US has invaded 67 countries since WW2, how about that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam, and don't get me started about Reagan!" Or "Bush didn't lie about wmd's, he's been speaking the truth since day 1 in office, and why should we trust those euroweenies anyway, they'll be dhimmis before the end of the century, and did you see that photograph of Chiraq and Saddam, I mean Syria is on the UN human rights commission for chrissakes, and don't forget that we beat the Nazi's!"

Pit these two views against each other, and it goes something like this:

- Bush lied about wmd's! Now do you see why the US is so evil?
- The US isn't evil, we beat the Nazi's!
- Maybe you did, but now you've abandoned Kyoto!
- You mean we should let other countries rule over us? Syria is on the human rights commission!
- And who's the real human rights violator here? You've invaded 67 countries since WW2!

A complete mess, a long series of "yes, but"'s and "see?"'s. All the views are so tightly coupled, and the level of cohesion so low, that it's impossible to untangle any single issue and debate it properly. Did Bush lie about wmd's or didn't he? And what does it mean if he did? You won't learn from this discussion.

What we need to do is separate the issues into logically independent modules with clearly defined dependencies and responsibilities. There's the "Bush truthfulness module", the "Bush IQ module", the "Bush morality module", the "international cooperation module", the "Iraq invasion module", etc. None of them are completely independent, but they can be more independent than they are today. It is relevant to the "Iraq invasion module" to know whether Bush is truthful and smart, for instance, but those are only two of several dependencies that module has, and not the most important. By keeping things separate, the relevant dependencies stand out more clearly to us. We can replace individual modules without affecting all the others, just as we can quickly replace the storage module of a well-designed piece of software, or plug in a new TV set.

The point is not to abandon worldviews, but to make them more flexible. You can still be generally pro-American, anti-American, pro-Bush or anti-Bush. But that worldview should be the sum of a large number of logically independent views with clearly defined dependencies, not a fixed property caused by bad design.

The key test is: Are you able to discuss one aspect of your worldview without making it a discussion about all aspects of your worldview? If I show you incontrovertible evidence that one of your views are wrong, do you know how that would affect the rest of your views, or is that thought too disturbing to consider?

High cohesion: Split big issues into clearly defined small issues. Loose coupling: Keep dependencies between them to a logical minimum. Loose coupling + high cohesion = meaningful political debates. (And good software. And yes, it's difficult there too.)

Hi Bjorn, You are so right! The type of dysfunctional dialogue you describe is the same as in bad marital communications. People basically cannot stay on an imortant topic and resove a given issue and this is really imperative if people really want to achieve a better relationship. For many years now I've done little armchair experiments watching political debates on the tube. It used to be, a decade or more ago, one could get good faith discussions. Now, unfortunately, the political spokespersons, even though in the same studio, just stick to their talking points for the most part. One of my simple measure of who is more believable is the one who tries to stay on topic more. The ones who don't are running away. Try this measure at random and see what the results are they are interesting.

Having watched a few Norwegian political debates lately, I notice that "low cohesion, high coupling" is the way most participants, including members of govt and parliament, argue. I think this is both intentional and not. Some of them are simply not skilled debaters, others deliberately link totally different issues in other to score cheap points amongst uncritical viewers, which undoubtedly frustrates the others. Even the hosts of these debates resort to "low cohesion, high coupling" to stir up things and increase the temperature of the debate. This is both on the state-owned NRK, and the commercial TV2.

This is probably common other places too, but I've seen good, civilized debates broadcast on the American channel C-SPAN, and good studio programs where people are allowed to explain their views without being cut off either by the host or other debaters. I'd very much welcome a Norwegian equivalent of C-SPAN.

Finally a posting that I cannot disagree with (some crafty use of the double negative there). Anyway, the point is Bjørn you've finally earned your notoriety with this one, it is certainly the case that politicians (and punters alike) are inherently biased and suffer from a bad case of low cohesion, high coupling. Unfortunately, even though many people are politicised, very few are political. This is one of the reasons why our precious Carl I. and what's-her-face Halvorsen are so damned successful, they explicitly deal in the business of populism, but sites like these are inherently populist as well are they not? The point is, as far as I can gather, to cater to your own audience In fact bloggers themselves, you included Bjørn, do this to a large extent. It seems to me as >60% (pick a number I agree, but I am expresseing an opinion, isn't that what we are supposed to do?) of the political "debate" is slanted, biased and distorted.

A concrete example, the current presidential campaign, this is a terrible display of how poinsionous the current political landscape has become. You have a situation where either candidate is virtually identical, although one has a preference for wearing cowboy hats whilst the other prefers botox injections. So in order to differentiate one from the other we end up with a dirty, vicious game of discrediting your opponent. Now, can anyone who frequents this site tell me any SPECIFIC policies of either candidate? Oh and ignore the war and terrorism for a second, these things are not important in the aggregate. Also, the whole NAFTA withdrawal is not really interresting ('cause it just won't happen). Cough up some examples that do not entail one or the other lieing or involving the size of either candidate's balls. All four of which are in pretty bad shape I hazerd to guess. Assuming of course that Mr. Kerry is in possesion of both, given Mr. Bush's war effort (or lack thereof) I take it as given that his are still a twosome.

This is way off the mark I know, but the crux of this (lengthy) peice is that the electorate are not interested in a balanced debate-too academic, and no-one likes an academic. So even though I agree with you in principle Bjørn, the nature of television and pop-culture has degraded politics to entertainment. I suggest we all ut away our political axes for a while and join forces in fighting the dreaded, populist one-liner.

Good thoughts, Bjorn. The good TV show hosts ask questions of their political guests in a modular fashion, and the best TV show hosts enforce modular answers. Of course, the best political spokespeople (or spinners) have the opposite measure of success.

But. You're thinking like a programmer. Logic and reason dictate that political questions should be dealt with that way; it's so rational. Most people don't think this way. I'm essentially a rationalist, but this way of thinking does not determine the political environment.

Richard Dawkins explained (I don't know if he came up with the idea, but I do know that he explained it to me) that genes are not only in competition with the genes in other species, they are also in competition with other genes within a species. And, what's more relevant to your post, they are also dependant upon cooperation with other genes within a species. Broad example: The genes that allow oxygen to bind with blood cells (that is, code for hemoglobin) would be worthless without the many genes that create the circulatory system. (A better example might be every gene involved in the complex Krebs cycle, but you get the idea.)

A single gene by itself can't survive. It only prospers in the environment that it evolved to survive in, *which includes every other gene in the organism*.

Individual political ideas, I think, are much the same. They can better survive when they are part of an ideology. In a way, it makes no more sense to talk about Bush's unilateralism apart from his tax policy than it would to discuss hemoglobin apart from the circulatory system. This is true for most ideas, left and right, libertarian and authoritarian, what have you.

Dawkins went further and defined memes, as you'll know, which propagate and combine in a very similar way to genes. Memes, and the environment where they fight to survive, the human brain, are far more complex than program modules and the environment where they battle it out, COM, or .NET, and Celeron chips.

Basically, I think your analogy is inadequate to the task that you've set it up to be a model for.

A little more from me:

If you ask two different people who have different ideologies to isolate one aspect of their thinking and to come up with the one answer that is the most truthful and single best answer for everybody, you'll fail.

Ask a tree and a human to put aside their different circulatory systems and to come up with the one that is most correct. It can't be done. A compromise won't work for either of them.

For one, maple syrup is the best answer, and for the other blood is the best answer. The best answer depends on every other system in place. There's no one answer.

Sorry to come off like a relativist (which I'm not really), but I don't think the rational, loose-coupling approach can work.

Geir, yah.

They are way different. Kerry's 20 year kind of non-record in the senate.

The man is an appeaser and has a soft spot for communists.

Don't listen to what he says he's going to do, he's left a trail a mile wide, then it flipped and became 1/2 mile for some things.

W said he was going to d X, X, X, X, X, flipped on campaign finance reform (Incumbent protection act, and see how well that is turning out) and a couple of other things. He hasn't made a decision on the assault rifle ban which is really no biggie if he just let's it expire.

Geir & Sandy P: I'd rather not have an all-out Bush vs Kerry debate in this thread. That's a bit off-topic.

Geir: "sites like these are inherently populist as well are they not? .. In fact bloggers themselves, you included Bjørn, do this to a large extent. It seems to me as >60% .. of the political "debate" is slanted, biased and distorted."

Of course I'm slanted, I'm just not slanted in the same direction as most other Norwegians. I try to be objective, but I'm probably failing.

But what I'm talking about here is not whether my views are biased, but whether all my biases and views are mixed together, or kept separate. Or to put it another way, whether I'm a partisan thinker or an independent one. Even moderates can be partisan.

Brian: "Individual political ideas, I think, are much the same. They can better survive when they are part of an ideology. In a way, it makes no more sense to talk about Bush's unilateralism apart from his tax policy than it would to discuss hemoglobin apart from the circulatory system."

Are you describing the way things are or the way things should be? Have to be careful about that distinction when you talk about evolution, (including memetics). Yes there are many good reasons why ideas group together with logically unrelated ideas to form ideologies and worldviews. One reasons is that a configuration of two "sides", made up of entities with little in common but a common enemy, is a stable configuration. In the world of technology you often move towards two competing standards. Same with politics. It's natural.

But that doesn't mean we have to accept it. We can fight natural but irrational politics with reason, just as we can fight natural but genetic blood diseases with medicine. I doubt we'll ever escape the one-dimensional political axis, because that's an obvious configuration of party politics, but that's no excuse for those of us standing on the sidelines to play along with party myths.

Bjorn: I'm trying to describe the way things are. I agree with your comments on what I wrote. They flesh out my thought a bit further.

Part of what I was trying to get at is that it won't be easy to switch out a module. Unlike program modules, which if well written are infinitely swappable, these political ideas will *want* to stay where they are becuase of their environment. Other ideas will act to reinforce the one you're trying to change. An ideology is self-reinforcing to a degree, and as you point out, competing ideologies play a role too. It's a dynamic system.

Not to say that change is impossible; there has been and will continue to be a great deal of change. But it's not really a rational process. It's natural.

Brian: "Unlike program modules, which if well written are infinitely swappable, these political ideas will *want* to stay where they are becuase of their environment."

Yes. I'm talking about your personal worldview, not that of a movement or party. On that level you need a different approach.

Bjorn, it's an interesting post and your proposal has a certain intellectual allure. The problem is that, like most proposals that have an air of social engineering about them, it gives too short shrift to human nature. There are a few different ways that I think that works.

First, any number of studies of people's attitudes have shown that opinions have tendencies to cluster, even on unrelated subjects. In other words (to use current American political issues as examples) people who favor school vouchers are more likely to oppose abortion and gun regulation, while people who support social spending are more likely to oppose military intervention abroad. So human nature to some extent resists the sort of modularity you're proposing.

Second, I'm not sure it's really possible to make consideration of issues modular, because most issues of human behavior are multifaceted to such an extent that we have no way of knowing ahead of time what effect changing one input or attitude will have on a whole host of other things. The computer program example you gave doens't translate across to human behavior because programs have a finite number of functions and each module has a finite number of interfaces with the other modules. In social science the law of unintended consequences looms large, and it's the single biggest impediment to any kind of social engineering. It's the reason why communism failed, and why socialism is failing. If it was possible to insulate one set of issues of human behavior from others, we would all be in a socialist paradise now. But we can't. Changing an attitude in one sphere will inevitably affect attitudes and behaviors in others.

It would be nice to be able to argue each individual issue on its own merits irrespective of other issues, but I don't think it's possible. I'm not suggesting that the two lines of opposing argument that you outlined at the top of your post are coherent or a good way of discussing things, but there is a reason, deep in human nature, that these kitchen sinks get thrown together as they do.

I recently participated in a five-on-one political argument about the war in Iraq (guess who was the one) and had a heck of a time sorting out the flood of non sequiters and oddly coupled arguments flying in from all directions. Part of the coupling is simply due to forensic opportunism--people want to open up new fronts fo debate when they see that their first approach isn't "winning." So I'm sympathetic to Bjorn's point.

BUT. It is a cheap debating trick to try to isolate particular reasons for doing something when the real situation is one where a set of reasons is individually necessary and jointly sufficient. Each individual reason may not seem that weighty, but all together they are compelling. Why do you marry one person instead of another? Why do you attend one university instead of another? Usually there is no single reason, but rather a set of interrelated reasons.

This comes up constantly in reference to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since it 's easy to say "Lots of countries have WMDs and we don't attack them" or "Lots of countries are oppressive" or "Lots of countries have ties to terrorists" or "Lots of countries have acted to thwart our foreign policy and hinder the war with the jihadis." Yeah, but very few countries pass all those tests and also happen to lie at the strategic center of gravity of our opponents' ideology, as well as having been a living example that defying the US was a low-cost proposition. It's a good debating trick to show that each of these reasons may not be individually strong enough to justify invasion, but it's a distorted way to think about the problem. Too much modularization hides the overwhelming nature of the case for war.

Let's kick out a module that's defective. Kyoto was rejected under the Clinton adminstration in 1998 by a vote of 95-0. The US Senate ratifies treaties under the US constitution.

steve: "BUT. It is a cheap debating trick to try to isolate particular reasons for doing something when the real situation is one where a set of reasons is individually necessary and jointly sufficient."

I agree. As long as we are aware of how one issue affects another, it may be ok to bring it up. But a lot of people are not aware of that. To them, all the issues are equally connected and important, which leads either to jumping to conclusions ("Bush is an idiot" "Ah, so you were against liberating Iraq?"), or to jump around randomly when they defend their views.

Steve:

This is you presidents own words:
"First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

As you can read yourself, the WMD argument is central to the justification of the war. The other arguments are only there to strengthen the first one.

Your argument was that "we went to war because of the sum of all these reasons", but I say "you went to war because of those other arguments supporting the one about WMDs". If you take away the WMD argument, are your case still valid ? Because thats the real discussion here. There never was any WMDs and therefore the main reason for going to war is false. To clearify further: a dictator with a slingshot isnt the same as a dictator with WMD.

(And by the way, that argument about Iraqs ties to terrorists (Al Quaida) is debunked so many times already, its getting boring.)

Dear Bjørn

First, I would like to make small apalogy, it was not my intention to start a Mr. Botox vs. Mr. AWOL thread (as I'm sure I didn't do, but you mentioned it so there you go). Second, what I was trying to highlight is that given the nature of modern politics (read in the aera of the professional spinner) in general and blogging in particular, it feels a bit misdirected and frankly naive to argue that the political debate is irrational (in economics jargon). I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase: "du skal ikke kaste stein hvis du sitter i glasshus". And that is what we all do, esp on the internet. Thus, calling upon all politicians, laymen as well as professionals, to come aboard the axis of earnest political debate is not only hypocritical but also dangerous. You call upon the loonie leftists to maintain a balanced debate, but unless you it yourself, what right do you have to make such a claim? Furthermore, I do not think the average ola-dunk would watch/listen to a balanced debate it just isn't what they want. For an example, consider Frp's slogan: for folk flest, who are these people? not me, and I trust you are not part of these people either, and judging by the latest poll "folk flest" is comprised of 18.5% of the eloctorate, hardly a majority is it? The point is, of course, not to be balanced, but rather to give the prople what they want.

This is exactly what politics has been degraded to, not debate, not facts, but rather sheer oppotunism. Politics is a good, and as such is subject the workings of the market. The optimal strategy for the politician/debate host/you is to respond to the demand such that the market clears (ignoring for any externalities for simplicity).

Therefore we are, in my humble opinion, destined to be subject to the fickle and apathetic interests of the median voter. Who as my lenghty exposition tried to emphasise, want simple solutions to complex questions.

Finally, concerning the bias of this site, and the majority of people who make postings here, it seems blatantly obvious that it is at odds with the general consensus in Norway, assuming such a consensus exists (i.e. ignoring Arrow's impossibility theorem for a second) but I ask why bother? What difference does it make to americans whether norwegians are Bushites or not, we cannot, vote, we do not matter, we are external to the system. And your somewhat erratic emphasis on policial purity seems to me as almost farcical.

But as mentioned, I applaud you for bringing this issue to your blog. It is refreshing to see a discussion void of (in the outset at least) particanship being posted on this otherwise extremely biased page.

PS I hope you do not delete this as a personal attack, which is is certainly not meant to be. I would very much like to continue this thread (if possible) since I believe it is important to act as a counterweight to the perpetual spinsters so frequently found elsewhere. DS

This page is a much needed refreshment and a good correction to much of the spin in the norwegian media. I find it very valuable to see dissenting opinions, that are calmly argued and well thought out. It's my opinion that the norwegian electorate do not have newspapers and TV news that are in line with their opinions. I do think that Norway and Sweden are in a very special and unfortionate situation, where most of the media establishment and "elite" are mostly leftist. I could reference you a norwegian article that while it doesn't draw to much conclusions cetrainly illustrates the problem.

Since a lot of journalists don't inverstigate to much about what they write about, they will usually create stories based on their own prejudices. This is an "evil" circle cause it gives people the impression that newspapers are supposed to be this way and new generations of journalists will almost certanly wenture into the same cycle. I have been in the media a while ago because of a technical problem where i work, and if the journalists that write about politics in general know as little about their field as the journalists I've been in contact with it is certainly frightening.

I find it interesting that you're defending the populism of politicians and newspapers with stating that "normal" people want it this way. I would suspect that a site like this is only visited by people who are above average interested in politics, and theese people should be able to respond on subject instead of muddying debates with for instance emotionally charged or completely irrelevant arguments.
It's extremely easy to let discussions, especially online, get completely derailed. And if discussions are derailled regularily, people who have something usefull to say will not want to post, and suddenly you'll be in the situation of almost any unmoderated web board in a most newspaper. Where the discussions usually revolve around how stupid your oponents are.

Geir: "Thus, calling upon all politicians, laymen as well as professionals, to come aboard the axis of earnest political debate is not only hypocritical but also dangerous."

I'm not really calling upon everyone to start using some new "method" which will magically make them rational. I'm just airing a few thoughts on how you and I can be a little less irrational about politics than the ideologists would want us to be, and I find modular design to be a helpful metaphor. But that may be only because I'm a programmer myself.

"You call upon the loonie leftists to maintain a balanced debate, but unless you it yourself, what right do you have to make such a claim?"

But this is not something I ask that anyone do for my benefit, because it makes it easier for me to argue with them, but for their own benefit. This is more a helpful suggestion than a demand. The more you make your own worldview rational, the stronger and more flexible your worldview becomes, and the easier you will find it to stand up to attack from other worldviews. The danger with the dominant position certain left-wing ideas about foreign policy has gotten in Norway is that they go dead on you from lack of opposition, like a muscle you're not using. Fresh ideas trained in a "tougher" environment have a major advantage. There's a battlefield of ideas out here on the web, and the Norwegian media can't expect to retain their monopoly on punditry forever. If you want your ideas to survive in a less privileged environment, you need to work to make them strong and rational. If you don't, history will leave them behind like an embarassing hair style.

"Furthermore, I do not think the average ola-dunk would watch/listen to a balanced debate it just isn't what they want."

I'm not talking about high-temperature TV debates. Politicians will always simplify, and they'll be the last to abandon the one-dimensional axis. And TV's just not the kind of medium where you can discuss thing in depth, and really put ideas to the test. It's more like a military parade where all the soldiers show off their shiny boots. Impressive, but says nothing about their actual performance in battle.

So I don't care about what the average TV listener wants. I'm talking about what you and I'm doing here, right now, and what we can do to make our own ideas more rational. Nobody will thank you for it, but if you believe that ideas matter, then it's worth the effort.

"Finally, concerning the bias of this site, and the majority of people who make postings here, it seems blatantly obvious that it is at odds with the general consensus in Norway,"

Yup. Wonderful, isn't it? Consensus kills ideas, disagreement keeps them alive. I'm doing both your ideas and my ideas a favor by challenging this consensus.

"What difference does it make to americans whether norwegians are Bushites or not, we cannot, vote, we do not matter, we are external to the system."

It matters when it affects our own political decisions. Norway takes pride in its international involvement. We're often involved in conflicts where the US has played an important role - Israel/Palestine, ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Not at the center perhaps, but we've been involved. If you believe that a nation of 4 millions can make a difference, then it should matter to you that we do the right thing for the right reasons, and that we have a good understanding of the outside world. I'm here to tell you that we don't.

"PS I hope you do not delete this as a personal attack, which is is certainly not meant to be."

Absolutely not. First, you're attacking my views, which is a good thing. Second, even if you had called me an idiot or whatever I wouldn't do anything. This is my blog, I'm here to stay. I'd rather people be rude to me than not criticize me at all, (which is a very real problem with blogs - they attract people who agree with the blogger.) It's much worse when personal attacks against other readers make them feel it's not worth it stick around. Look at Usenet.

Also, if you do break the rules, you'll have plenty of opportunities before I start deleting posts. I'm not sure I've ever done that with non-spam. The only person I've had to kick out before Salahudin this week was some Nazi. The rules here are so simple that it takes a really daft or rude personality to get banned.

Harald: "I have been in the media a while ago because of a technical problem where i work, and if the journalists that write about politics in general know as little about their field as the journalists I've been in contact with it is certainly frightening."

Yeah, this is something almost everyone discovers at some time - that when the journalists write about something they know much about, they notice all kinds of big and small mistakes. And that's probably true for most subjects. I know it is for subjects I know well - politics and computers.

The median voter might seem to be both "fickle and apathetic" because he/she has no influence on the issues being debated. Why should he/she use a lot of time educating oneself about issues that someone else (the politicians) decides?

The only influence a voter has, is that he/she can vote on a party one time every fourth year. Then the voter has to decide on a "parcel" (party program) that includes a lot of issues, which is more or less connected. And "low cohesion and high coupling" characterize the frenetic debate ahead of the election. This leads to Bad Political Debate. Disillusion over party politics is what should be expected.

On the other hand, the median voter would study the issues thoroughly, if he/she had direct influence on the outcome, and would have demanded knowledgeable and coherent debates on the issues. That means Good Political Debate. What does this implicate? For me it implicate that I support direct democracy, where the voter should decide on issues and not only vote on a party. (But unfortunately, I have no influence on that issue...).

What would determine the voters' position on a particular issue? Primarily perceived self-interest. As mentioned earlier in this debate, in politics a lot of issues are interconnected. But how a particular outcome on one issue would influence other issues can only be determined on the individual level. (Relevant couplings between issues are not the same for every individual). If individuals get direct influence over politics I am convinced that he/she would gather sufficient knowledge about particular issues, which would secure that the majority's positions would lead to good politics. At least as good as what the politicians manage today.

I'm working with a group of media theorists here in New York who are developing a rather unique outlook on political opinion: namely, that it must always be viewed as entertainment. Their theory is based on the lack of sex appeal of social programs, and the attractive appeal of decisive policies, like the war in Iraq.

Their contention is that decisive policies always win, because they're entertaining (even when war is concerned), and that this is a new phenomenon that can be seen as a reaction against the post-modernism and multiculturalist political correctness of the seventies, eighties and nineties. In other words, one of the reasons so many people in America support Bush and the war effort is precisely because they're so entertained by the reaction against it.

The most interesting component of their ideas is that this is seen as a value that gives America a particular advantage over other cultures.

So far, I'm quite intrigued. It surely explains why Europeans have such a different point-of-view: European culture doesn't put a premium on entertainment and fun as a value, as much as American culture does.

Good point, Markku. The basis of any drama or story is conflict. Most of us have little time or inclination to be au fait with every issue. It's so much easier to determine our views by agreeing with those we admire and disagreeing with those we despise, assuming that they are familiar with the details. The more hysterical and irrational the hostility among those we despise on a given issue, the more confident we are in holding that position, so the entertainment-based world view isn't entirely irrational.

I would take issue though, Bjørn, with the examples you cite for low cohesion. If you believe that America is the font of all evil, then it is also necessary to believe that its leaders are incompetent, stupid and corrupt, and that anti-American institutions such as the UN and its European supporters are credible, principled and honest. If, on the other hand, you regard the UN as at best ineffectual and at worst a hopelessly corrupt tool of tyrants, terrorists and their spineless European cronies/appeasers, you will likely view America and its leaders through rose-coloured glasses, and old Europe as hopelessly degenerate. I guess in the heat of argument these positions are argued poorly. However as these are irreconcilible world views, there's probably little point wasting time in formulating from these points a well-written, cohesive argument which will convince no-one anyway.

house exercise

Food pyramid

wall poster

calorie table

instructional tools

MyPyramid.gov

healthy meals

http://www.eatrightcards.com/

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/773