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!
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!
posted by David Ourisman at 2:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home