The ethics of political debate

Let me first state, as simply as possibly, the ethical principle that this essay is calling for: When engaged in political debate, accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view.

I want to make explicit my assumptions about how democracy is supposed to work.

(1) Democracy works when the public is engaged in open and honest debate around those issues for which no clear consensus exists (in other words, virtually any issue that matters).

(2) Open and honest debate benefits everyone. No one individual, philosophy, or political party has a monopoly on truth. Our perception is skewed by our assumptions, and the other side can remind us of things we have failed adequately to understand.

(3) Parties who differ are valuable resources for one another. There is a synergy that takes place when we take the effort necessary for open communication. The process of debate and amendment leads to perfected legislation. (This is why the initiative process, lacking as it does a means for a debate that can shape the language of a proposal, often serves the public badly.)

(4) We need to be mindful of the ethics of debate in order that our political dialogue be productive and benefit the public. The principles are very simple. Never demonize an opponent. Never assume that you “know” the motivations of the other party. Accept it as your responsibility to ensure that you have clearly understood your opponent’s position. Accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view.

This is not rocket science. This is Interpersonal Communication 101. These simple principles can help any conflicted relationship, be it between friends, enemies, marriage partners, or members of Congress.

Ethical and effective political debate is not happening within our society, and this failure is a terrible shame. Let me be clear in asserting the failure is not that of a single political party. Political attack ads are the poster child for the violation of this principle, but most examples of “hardball” politics violate this principle of open and honest debate.

Two recent examples:

Opponents of the Bush Administration have accused the President of “lying” to the American public about the reasons for going to war. In making such accusations, they are assuming that the President, Vice President, and others knew that their claims about WMD in Iraq were not factual. Accusations of “lying” only provoke defensive counter-attacks such as the one Dick Cheney made when he called his opponents “dishonest.” Such rhetoric deflects the participants from open and honest debate.

Rep. John Murtha (R-PA) recently gave a speech in which he stated, quite articulately, his growing misgivings about our current military engagement in Iraq. He proposed the following resolution:

     The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress,
     is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at
     the earliest practicable date.

     A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S.
     Marines shall be deployed in the region.

     The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
     through diplomacy.

Whether you agree with him or not (and I do agree with him), this was a serious proposal presented by a retired U.S. Marine who has enough knowledge of military affairs to speak with authority.

But what happened? Republicans put forward a resolution that resembled but failed to capture the intended meaning of Congressman Murtha’s resolution: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.” Some claimed this was “close enough,” but Murtha’s anger—and the anger of Democrats—made it clear that he had not been understood.

Back to the ethical principle I proposed: accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view. If our elected representatives in the executive and legislative branches could bring themselves to adopt this principle, it would go a long way to healing the political polarization that has bedeviled our nation. If political candidates could accept this ethic of political dialogue, it would result in campaigns that would enrich public discourse and attract citizens back into the political process.

It might even make it easier for us to address our real conflicts and discover workable solutions our problems. Imagine that!

Parallel universe? Dick Cheney, meet Spiro Agnew

Back in the year 1970, the Vietnam War was raging, and the anti-war movement was beginning to get traction. The Nixon Administration was challenged in those days with the (ultimately futile) task of maintaining public support for the war effort. In those dark days, Nixon turned to his Vice President, a former Governor of Maryland by the name of Spiro Agnew, to serve in the role of attack dog. Agnew delivered a number of colorful speeches that were written by speechwriters William Safire and Patrick Buchanan.

Those speeches, notably, did not address the substance of what the war protestors were saying. Rather, Agnew engaged in ad hominem attacks against war protesters in general and the “liberal press” in particular. In colorful alliterative language, Agnew accused these critics of being “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He appealed to the anti-intellectual bias of some of his political base. “A spirit of national masochism prevails,” he stated, “encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Fast forward to November, 2005. The Iraq War is still raging. As of today, some 2,077 Americans have died in conflict, over 93% of them after Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Over 15,000 Americans have been injured according to official figures, many suffering loss of limbs. Over 60% of the American public disapproves of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Republicans in the Senate have begun to question publicly their President’s conduct of the war. The United States has lost its reputation as a champion of human rights because of the kinds of abuses uncovered or suspected at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “secret” CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. And as if this is not enough, it is clear that the grounds on which this war was “sold” to the American public—Saddam’s so-called weapons of mass destruction—were based on an intelligence analysis that, at best, was dead wrong and that, at worst, represented intentional distortion. And wrapping all of this up, this was a government so intent on intimidating those who would question its intelligence analysis that senior members of this Administration “outed” the name of Valerie Plame.

With its support dissolving, with its war efforts going badly, with the prospects discouraging, and with the next electoral cycle coming up, the Bush Administration has decided to attack. And the attack dog du jour? Vice President Dick Cheney. “Now Cheney Fights Back,” says the current headline of the Drudge Report.

But as in the year 1970, fighting back does not consist of refuting the facts posed or the arguments made by those in the growing majority opposed to the Iraq War. Fighting back, as in the days of Spiro Agnew, consists of ad hominem attacks.

Cheney refers to “the suggestion … that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence,” characterizing it as “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” A close reading of Cheney’s statement leads to this conclusion: it is the reference to purposeful misleading that the Vice President finds “dishonest and reprehensible.” I am willing to grant that the President sincerely believed what he was telling the American public. But the claim that the intelligence was wrong and misleading is a strong one. Notice that Cheney neither acknowledges nor addresses the intelligence failures to which he was a party. Cheney does not refute the substance of the criticism. Instead, he attacks his opponents as being dishonest and reprehensible.

Cheney alludes to the Republican “talking point” that many of the war’s critics are “politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein.” This is a half truth. Those politicians—Democrats and Republicans alike—voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam as a last resort. They trusted Bush’s assurance that he would give the weapons inspectors and diplomats every chance to successfully disarm Saddam. As we now know all too well, because of the work of weapons inspectors and diplomats, because of economic sanctions and a no-fly zone, our policy goal had already been accomplished. There were no WMDs to be found in Iraq. Notice again that Cheney does not refute the substance of the charge … because the charge is, in fact, correct. Instead, he attacks his opponents as political opportunists.

Cheney charges that “our people in uniform have been subjected to … cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.” What are those falsehoods? They are, according to the Vice President, the suggestion that our soldiers “were sent into battle for a lie.” I recognize a non sequitur when I see one. The only “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” of which I am aware were the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs. Some might call this a “lie;” to this Cheney objects. Others might term it a tragic misjudgment. Any way you see it, the results have been tragic. Thousands have died. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The war has further alienated the Islamic world to America. But whether it’s a lie or a misjudgment, Cheney avoids the substance of the charge; all he can do is attack his opponents as cynical and pernicious.

Oh, and by the way, war critics are not directing their arguments at our soldiers. The criticism, dear Mr. Cheney, is directed at yourself and your boss.

One final point. Cheney accuses war critics of trying to rewrite history. As the New York Times itself noted in a recent editorial, the only party trying to rewrite history is the Bush Administration. How many different rationales for this war are we up to now?

Vice President Cheney is repeating the rhetorical strategy that Vice President Agnew undertook thirty-five years ago. This was an unsuccessful strategy then, and it will be unsuccessful now. The Bush Administration seems blind to the fact that the American public has serious and substantial concerns about this war, that the American public wants its questions taken seriously and addressed honestly.

Why have Bush and company chosen to attack the integrity of those who would criticize the disastrous choices that have left us in our Iraqi quagmire? Why has Dick Cheney chosen to call us dishonest, reprehensible, opportunistic, cynical, and pernicious? Does this attack speech simply reveal the desperation of an Administration that has sunk completely into the quagmire of Iraq?

Getting to the heart of the matter (finally) ...

Sexual orientation has been the divisive issue in Christian churches in recent years. Debate in the United Methodist Church has dealt with two issues in particular. One issue concerns ordaining and appointing “self-avowed and practicing” gays and lesbians. The other issue concerns the prerogative of pastors to perform “holy unions.”

These issues have been the subject of legislation written by the General Conference, a representative body meeting once every four years that is comprised of delegates elected from each Annual Conference in the denomination. Delegates come from all over the United States, but there are additional delegates who represent African annual conferences that are a part of the denomination. African Christians, who tend to be culturally much more conservative than Americans, have voted with delegates from more “conservative” regions of the U.S., providing a narrow (but narrowing) plurality in favor of disallowing full equality to our gay and lesbian members.

This has been the most vexing issue facing the denomination for many years. Sexual orientation has divided the church at all levels, including the Council of Bishops whose silence has been deafening. They have not even been able to make a statement as simple as this: “We confess that we are not of one mind on the issue. Nevertheless, we are committed to listening to and respecting one another in our disagreement ... and we urge the church to do the same.” There has been little constructive conversation around the issue of sexual orientation.

Until now.

A gay man was refused membership in the South Hill United Methodist Church in South Hill, VA. He had been singing in the Choir and attending worship, and he expressed a desire to become a member of the church. The church’s senior pastor, the Rev. Ed Johnson, was not willing to receive the man into membership because of the candidate’s self-avowed, practicing homosexuality. The congregation’s associate pastor filed a complaint against Rev. Johnson, and ultimately Rev. Johnson was placed on involuntary leave by an 80% vote of the clergy session of the Virginia Annual Conference.

The Judicial Council (the “Supreme Court”) of the United Methodist Church disallowed that disciplinary action, ruling on the narrow grounds that the local church pastor—not the District Superintendent or Bishop—has the prerogative to discern readiness for church membership. It ordered that Rev. Johnson be reinstated and that he receive back salary that he had forfeited.

In response to this ruling, the Council of Bishops spoke. Finally. They made a pastoral statement. They gave a word of guidance to the entire church. They found their voice:

     While pastors have the responsibility to discern
     readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a
     barrier... We call upon all United Methodist pastors
     and laity to make every congregation a community
     of hospitality.

The Bishops quoted the Book of Discipline:

     God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live
     together in Christian community. We implore families and
     churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members
     and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and
     with all persons.

We have gotten to the heart of the matter (finally). As significant as are ordination and marriage, baptism is a much more significant place to begin a theological conversation. Baptism is the sign of the inclusive love of God who created us and loves us all. Baptism is the sign of God’s acceptance of us flesh-and-blood humans. God loves all of us, even though we fall short of the goal of keeping God’s law.

Please keep in mind the primary expression of God’s law. According to Jesus, it is the commandment to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Who among us is able, always and everywhere, to love our neighbor, to act towards our neighbor in the way we would hope our neighbor would act towards us? The gospel affirms that despite our continual falling short of keeping what Jesus called “the greatest commandment,” we are still loved by God.

Here is a place to begin the conversation: with the mystery of God’s grace, with the affirmation of baptism, with the hope of a church as inclusive and loving as God.