Democratic politics is supposed to be about testing and advancing ideas through public debate. So it's a troubling sign when simply arguing a point of view makes you a partisan. I recently used a column to criticize one party leader, while siding with another. A reader, who obviously disagreed with me, scolded me for pretending to be neutral when, he said, I'm obviously partisan. I was taken aback. Actually, I am neither. Not that I'm thin-skinned about criticism. Rather, I was surprised that my critic seemed oblivious to a third possibility. Let me explain. On one side of political debate are those who strive to be neutral and stick closely to the facts. Typically, these might be journalists or “experts.” On the other side are partisans. Their job is to put the best spin they can on their party's views, much like lawyers who are pleading a case. No one expects neutrality from them and it is up to the audience to sort through the differences. Both types make an important contribution to political debate and I admire people who are good at them. But this division of labour is incomplete. There is a third group, which I'll call “the ideas camp,” and it lies between the two extremes, something like this: People in the ideas camp have a point of view and likely side with others who share it. For example, my (new) institutional home, Canada 2020, describes itself as “progressive.” I share these views and engage from that point of view. How is that different from being partisan? First of all, ideas people should be committed to neutrality. They must be willing to defer to facts, from hard science to history. That, in turn, makes them natural advocates for evidence-based policymaking, wherever they sit on the political spectrum. But they also recognize that neutrality only gets you so far. Too often the evidence is inconclusive or conflicting. Consider the claim that harsh punishment deters crime. Experts go back and forth on this. Does that mean policymakers can just ignore them? No, this is where ideas people come in. They look beyond the evidence and try to fill in the blanks by combining facts with a discussion of the values and principles behind the issue. Sometimes Canadians agree on these values, but often they don't. Values and principles are not based on evidence. They say something about our system of beliefs as a society. As a result, this kind of discussion is very different from the one about facts. It is not about neutrality and finding the objective truth, so much as finding the most convincing story of how the issue fits into our beliefs as a society. The task of Ideas people is to create coherence out of complex and often confusing circumstances. The practitioners of this craft are really a special sort of storytellers. Moreover, this kind of storytelling doesn't stop with a single issue or even a theme, such as climate change, free trade or terrorism. Ideas people are always trying to fit different stories together within a larger, more comprehensive story, like a tapestry of the society around us. Over time, the narrative can get very complex; and, typically, it is anchored in values that position it somewhere along the political spectrum, say, as social democratic, liberal or conservative. It should not be surprising, then, to find that ideas people bring their political views to bear on the issues. This is what makes them interesting. Still, if they want to be treated differently from partisans, they must play by different rules. And the Golden Rule of storytelling is that no story—left or right—is ever fully complete or fully coherent. The more comprehensive the story, the more complex the circumstances, and the more creative the enterprise. Reasonable people therefore will disagree. When they do, they must manage this through discussion and debate and, eventually, elections. Ideally, these exchanges will be respectful and fair-minded. Practitioners of the art must be willing to question their assumptions as new evidence and arguments present themselves or as values change. They must remain open to other stories, even when they agree to disagree. I think this is where our democracy is in serious trouble. The capacity for this kind of open debate over ideas is disappearing. Perhaps it is the huge success of the communications industry; or perhaps it is the rise of social media, but storytelling is in danger of being swallowed up by the partisan side of the spectrum. This will benefit no one. Without openness and self-criticism to leaven it, political debate quickly degenerates into demagoguery, becoming a cancer on the body politic. It is in everyone's interest to keep the ideas space strong and vibrant. And that means storytellers must live and die by the Golden Rule. So, neutrality, partisanship and storytelling all have key roles in our democracy. We need people who are focused on the facts, from hard-headed journalists and fact-checkers to academics and public servants. We also need partisans and advocates. They are the change-agents that move ideas ahead. Finally, we need people who are constantly developing and testing the key narratives. Neutral people don't have the same freedom to speculate. Partisans are busy on the front lines, where there is little time or opportunity to be testing or revising their story. The storytellers who occupy the middle ground will have their political preferences and commitments, but we should not confuse them with partisans. Sometimes we may wonder who is who but, in the end, openness is the unmistakable mark of ideas people. And trust me, no one can fake that for long.   Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan