The single step that can transform our democracy

Perhaps the single most important measure that can be introduced in the first 100 days of any government is one that  makes democracy work properly. By that I do not mean making it more transparent or extending it beyond the present confines. What I mean is simply equipping people to use it rationally for the common good.

You can have the most perfect democratic processes imaginable but if they are being freely exploited by rabble-rousing radio and TV presenters, newspapers, bloggers, politicians, mad mullahs and potty priests to bend opinion their way then democracy per se can run counter to the benefit of all. You have only to look at the right-wing pieces on climate change referred to in Jessica Asato's latest post to see what I mean. Not to mention the twisted logic of most of the comments on a typical political website (not this one,of course).

In the final analysis the only way to combat such an abuse of the system is not to limit the expression of opinion (except in the most extreme of cases) but to give people the means of seeing through the debating tricks frequently employed by those seeking to shape public attitudes. In these days when thinking clearly can mean the difference between joining or not joining a terrorist group it is even more vital to immunise people in this way against the virus of false argument.

Fortunately there is a 'vaccine' in existence which does just that. It's Straight and Crooked Thinking, a classic book written in 1930 by a Cambridge psychology lecturer, Robert H Thouless which is as relevant today as it ever was. Those who have read it are effusive with their praise. Here are a few quotes from the reviews.

Reviewer (1)

"I last read this book about 15 years ago as a student and the lessons of the 38 dishonest tricks used in arguments detailed in the book have left a life-lasting impression on me."

Reviewer (2)

"Reading this book opened my eyes to exactly how badly crooked thinking runs our society today: how little emphasis we place on actual evidence and argument, what kind of dishonest argumentation our politicians and news providers use, etc."

Reviewer (3)

"This book should be required reading for anyone that takes public policy issues seriously. It explains the various techniques and ploys by which emotionally loaded words and various debating tricks can transform an intellectually honest debate into a propaganda campaign, and gives techniques to counter these ploys. I cannot recommend it highly enough"

Reviewer (4)

"This is one of the most useful books that I have ever read. The author points out how debates are often lead away from the main issues by using arguments that appeal to emotion rather than to facts.He clearly describes how it is done and how to avoid being lead away from the issues by such devices. Important reading for anyone who has been in a debate and wonders why the opponent didn't sound convincing and yet you were unable to answer him/her."

Although the book was written so long ago and is now out of print, it is no doubt possible to reprint it and bring it up to date with a view to giving it a prominent place in the school curriculum. Such a simple step could quickly transform the quality of our democracy and put many a political scoundrel out of a job. Maybe that's why the book has not been given the publicity that is due to it - until now.

Comments

[Bill Gnade]

Dear Mr. Rosenthal,

Perhaps the very best thing that ever happened to me -- intellectually speaking -- occurred when I walked into my first logic course in college. The humiliation was, in the long run, just plain glorious: I was liberated from my own stinking pride.

Not that I have fully escaped pride's grip or always been able to pin down its cunning heart. But my conceit was absolutely trammeled by logic, and it still is. Learning the informal fallacies (those dishonest tricks to which you refer) was perhaps the most important part of my education; though I step into one every now and then, I am grateful that my tutors pointed me towards clarity. Mind you, it is hard always to be on the lookout for one's own blunderings, but such attention has made me a better man than I otherwise would have been.

Thanks for reminding me, and everyone else, of the importance of lucid and honest discourse. Your essay's spirit reminds me of an old professor of mine who urged us to truly love our neighbors by being pellucid in our prose and limpid in our logic. Such love is not mere pandering or pedanticism, it is just simple kindness, simple courtesy. Oh, sure there are the brutes and sloths who find sound rhetoric too fastidious and even quaint, but they shall pay a price for their laziness. We all will. The activists are perhaps the very worst offenders, for they are vigorous in their passion but indolent in speech; they mask their laziness behind "urgency" and "immediacy" and "authenticity." You know, as Rousseau once said, where "passion trumps reason." I guess what I am saying is that we, at least in America, are being flooded with passion, for passion is chic: it proves you care.

It's those heartless logicians who are "bogging things down," who are "in the way." I bet you see that at work even in the UK.

Blessings, and thanks!

BG