-
-
Donate – Register for Newsletter
-
Weekly Poll
Loading ...-
-
Your Views
-
-
-
Social Media
-
-
-
NZCPR CAMPAIGNS
-
Stuart Birks
An American politician, the late Eugene McCarthy, described politics as a game. It is a game where the public see the performance, but not the behind the scenes planning. Much of the politics that we see is engineered. Some of the strategies are described in academic literature using terms such as “agenda setting”, “agenda denial” and “framing”. It is not entirely accidental that some issues get a lot of attention and others are ignored. It is the result of groups competing to set the agenda. When an issue does get attention, the aim is then to frame it so that a particular view and desired solution dominates. Mike Butler referred to this in his recent column, “Framing the race debate” http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/06/mike-butler-framing-race-debate.html. I described it also some time ago in a column on politics and reasoned debate (http://www.nzcpr.com/guest121.htm).
We place a lot of weight on the word of authority figures, especially if they have qualifications and can call on supporting research. The media often report on research as if the findings are points of fact. Is this confidence misplaced?
On 16 February Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier gave a speech to a hui in which he questioned the value of stopping violence programmes (Boshier, 2009) . He recognises that there are problems with the current “one-size-fits-all” approach of current anti-violence programmes. Some might see this as a significant development. Others will be sceptical.
It would be nice to believe that the current election campaign would consist of well-informed debate on important issues. Ideally, there would be a good airing of the best alternative policies. Politicians, armed with the facts, would debate openly without being tied to agendas, hidden or otherwise. Let’s be honest, though. That is not what is happening. Nevertheless, according to some theories, the world is rational, everyone is logical, and there is no false information!
Central to the issue of policy making is the fact that we do not influence the present, but we may influence the future. When determining policy objectives it is important, therefore, to consider not so much what is wrong now, but what may be unsatisfactory in the future. A focus on present circumstances may result in poor decisions.
It is prudent to recognize the limitations of our knowledge and abilities. Such limitations, if accepted, should lead us to be cautious about significant intervention in people’s lives. Otherwise we run the danger of large, unforeseen and possibly very costly consequences. Moreover, we should not assess the influence of the Family Court by looking at individual cases alone
