Political Speech

 

POLITICAL SPEECH

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.     10-12

ABSTRACT:  A discussion of political speech is offered, together with proposed concepts of which political speech should be “protected speech.”

KEY WORDS:  political speech, politics, speech, influence, lying

In a democracy it is essential that citizens be able to communicate to each other their views and desires regarding the body politic, including issues and elections.  We are agreed in this country about this, but we have not defined political speech clearly or distinguished different forms of political speech.  Further, certain variants of political speech are currently protected which should not be protected in an effective democracy.

It is an underlying premise of this essay that citizens choose their elected officials most wisely when they are knowledgeable about the candidates’, views and goals and knowledgeable about the problems facing the country, and when they make their voting decisions for themselves and are not swayed by inducements from others regarding how to vote.

In order to maximize voters’ uses of relevant information (knowledge about issues and about candidate’s positions and views), some revision of current campaign practices is necessary.  In particular, appeals to voters that distort and obfuscate the truth and appeals to voters that seek to influence voters without the voters’ awareness should be subject to controls.

The speech of a citizen regarding government, whether orally or in writing, including published writing, is essential to a democracy (in order for citizens to be educated about issues and in order for the needs of all citizens to be heard), but paying someone else to speak that person’s political views should not be considered speech protected under the Constitution.  Citizens should certainly be permitted to contribute money to political organizations, but it is a serious error to equate this with the citizen’s protected political speech.  When another person or organization is speaking politically, that person or organization is not enunciating the individual citizen’s political views.  Only the citizen can do that, and only that individual speech should be viewed as protected speech under the Constitution.  Political speech by organizations should certainly be allowed (corporation and political organizations should be able to express their views and their interests, whether or not they are “persons”), but the political speech of individual citizens is the only political speech that should be or needs to be protected, because it is they who are responsible for the government.

The errors of considering organizations’ political speech to be sacrosanct and defining paying others to speak for one as political speech discourages citizens from speaking for themselves and has contributed to the confusing and misleading plethora of political speech by organizations and the domination of politics by large entities that we now suffer in this country.  This system supports the incorrect assumption that the organization is expressing the views of all of its members or contributors, which it most certainly does not, and it implants the attitude in all of us that the speech of these large organizations is what “counts.”  This system functions to concentrate political power in those organizations and not in the citizens themselves.  All of the efforts of those political organizations and corporations are focused on inducing voters to vote the way that the organizations and corporations wish, so that we are becoming not a democracy but a nation of voting groups.  In the long run, this way of organizing the political dialogue subtly encourages those organizations and corporations to come to think that the voters are an inconvenience and that they themselves, since they are the power brokers, should decide political questions without the bother of a vote.

A distinction should be made and maintained between expression of political opinions about issues, candidates, and the country’s future and speech the purpose of which is to induce others to vote as the speaker (individual or organization) wishes them to.  Applying this distinction, we see clearly that most of what currently passes for political speech is of the latter type.  Almost all political advertisements and most editorials in newspapers or TV are for the purpose of swaying voters to vote in a particular way, and they almost all do this by giving distorted information to voters.  Even public demonstrations by citizens, while essential to democracy, focus on only one side of an issue.  Few expressions on politics present balanced and reasoned discussions of issues or candidates. 

The expression of political views and desires that is essential for democracy takes the forms of “I think...,” “I believe...,” or “I want... for the country.”  Expressions in the form of “I want you to [think a certain way] [vote a certain way]...” are not political expressions but are bald efforts to get you to think or vote in a certain way for the speaker’s benefit, with no regard for your benefit.  Even this should be allowable if it is clear that this is what is being done (i.e., if the advertisement or speech to a group uses the words “I want you to....”).  Speech about a political issue that presents a truthful and balanced (not one-sided) view, explaining the problem and potential solutions, is not an effort to get voters to vote a certain way but is an effort to help voters arrive at a good decision themselves about the issue.  Almost all advertisements and speeches to groups about political issues are one-sided efforts to get voters to adopt a specific view of an issue. 

We learn this one-sided influence style in our families, when we argue for what we want, to the exclusion of what might be good for others, and we naturally bring this style to politics.  When a person gives a truthful and balanced presentation of an issue (in the family or in public), he may hope that those who hear it will come to see the issue his way, but he has voluntarily limited his opportunities for benefit to those that result from adhering to the truth and from a fair decision process.  This is perhaps the crux of the argument in this essay.  Just trying to get you own way is the act of a child, while trying to reach cooperative agreement through honesty and consideration for others’ needs is the act of an adult.

The importance of distinguishing citizen and organizational expression of views from their efforts to sway voters is that it allows us to see that the former should be allowed (and citizen speech protected without limit) (perhaps with the exception of arguments for the violent overthrow of government), while attempts to influence votes needs regulation.  The current amount of money spent on swaying votes is staggering and continues to grow, and it has pernicious effects, since efforts to sway votes are, as noted above, purposely one-sided and therefore do not contribute to voters making intelligent and informed decisions.  These efforts are frequently purposely misleading in order to influence voters by appealing to prejudices and emotions (most often fear and greed).  This huge amount of money and professionally produced effort to influence voters encourages voters to be passive and to wait to eventually be convinced by either “side” (which means that both sides must spend huge amounts of money in order to avoid losing by default in the voters’ minds).  It also tends to make voters feel small and ignorant, since they get the idea that their own thinking can’t possibly be on an equal plane with the ads and their confident assertions.

It is true that large numbers of citizens have in the past been told how to vote, by political parties, political bosses, bosses in general, and churches, but it is my contention that these methods of voting produce better outcomes for the bosses and the organizations than they do for the citizens.  Since most candidates want to be elected more than they want to serve the country and more than they want the best candidate to be elected, and since the problems facing a huge and complex nation such as ours are complicated and do not have clear solutions, political parties and candidates focus on inducing voters to vote for them rather than focusing on educating voters about their beliefs and methods of governing (so that citizens can know what they are choosing).  Much of this inducement is appeal to emotions, prejudices, and simplified solutions, none of which help voters to determine the best candidates.  (Voters’ emotional reactions to candidates can give valuable information, such as a sense of a candidate’s trustworthiness, but simply “liking” a candidate is complex enough that it can be quite misleading as a basis for choosing a candidate.)

Organizations of citizens that have political purposes are not per se the villain here, since it is “natural” for us to organize ourselves in hierarchical ways, but organizing that takes power away from most citizens and focuses it in those who choose to join and to rise in these organizations is harmful to democracy.  It is undeniable that those who rise in politics, at all levels, including workers in political parties, almost uniformly do it for the power and status to be gained, rather than to benefit other citizens or the country (even though they justify their efforts to sway voters by specious arguments that their views are correct or anointed by God).  It is also undeniable that we all wish that others would agree with us and do things our way.  The challenge for citizens in a democracy is to accord all other citizens some respect for their views and to give all of those other citizens the same autonomous power that we hold as citizens.  When we attempt to sway their votes through deception and manipulation, we demean and disrespect them in our efforts to dominate.

Some might argue that voters are independent-minded enough that inducements of all types regarding how to vote should be allowed, because voters can make their own appropriate decisions regardless of the inducements, but the enormous amount of money spent on product advertising that is designed to sway buying preferences without the use of actual information about products tells us clearly that American business believes that non-informational inducements work.  The same applies in politics.  The rugged intellectual independence of voters is a nice myth and one that is logically connected with letting voters make decisions for the country, but the record of non-informational and subliminal inducements is such that it becomes clear that some things should be done to protect voters from certain types of inducement.  A further negative result of “politics through advertising” is that ads almost always focus on only one issue (in an attempt to connect with those voters who feel strongly about that issue), which encourages “single issue voting.”  Single issue voting will not select the best candidate for the overall job at issue because the person elected must find the best way to deal with many different issues in a consistent and coordinated way.

Many would argue that the best outcome results from having a system of competing presentations of views and goals, much as our justice system depends on arguments from “both sides” (which unfortunately have sunk basically to attempts by both prosecution and defense to create false pictures of reality in the minds of jurors in order to “win” the case, rather than bending their energies to find the best approximation to the truth that can be achieved).  Rhetoric is the enemy of truth, since it attempts to sway opinion rather than find the truth.  Setting two sides against each other is no guarantee of finding the truth, as we see so clearly in our so-called “debates” between Presidential candidates.  Getting it right and finding the truth depend on the motivation of citizens in general to do so, and dividing people into groups to fight over who is to get his or her way achieves only a “winner” and not the best government or the truth.

Another growing problem is efforts to sway voters made and paid for by individual rich citizens.  Many such citizens are spending millions of dollars in their own personal efforts to influence the votes of other citizens, and while the right of rich citizens to express their personal political views should be protected, the disproportionate influence on election outcomes by those who are rich is something that we may wish to limit.  The Constitution offers no right to richer citizens to have more political influence than poorer citizens, but our system of allowing an individual (or an organization) as much influence as can be paid for has negative impact on the selection of the best candidate for the job.  Having greater influence by richer citizens moves us in the direction of oligarchy rather than that of a healthy democracy.  Rich citizens could contribute to the political process by providing balanced and reasoned analyses of their positions, but their riches should not be allowed to unduly influence the votes of others, particularly through deceptive advertising and purposive efforts to influence.

Some of the underlying concern motivating this essay stems from the fact that lying is a serious problem in our society (and perhaps in all societies), since it leads to division, resentment, and poor decisions and to citizens taking advantage of other citizens.  We resent it when we are lied to, but unfortunately people are often unable to perceive when they are being deceived, or they allow themselves to be deceived in the service of something they wish to believe.  Perhaps we tolerate lying because it would be difficult (though not impossible) to agree on which assertions are lies, or perhaps we tolerate it because we want to reserve the right ourselves to lie when we feel we “need” to.  Human beings have considerable capacities to distinguish truth from unreality, but we are not perfect in this, and all children grow up in households in which others lie, and they experiment with it themselves in order to avoid punishment and maintain the approbation of adults.

It is my opinion that greater attention to recognizing lying and to exposing purposeful lying would benefit our society’s social, business, and political life.  I would go so far as to favor criminal penalties for purposeful lying for gain or advantage, but that surely will not be popular, at least not yet.

Regardless of one’s position on lying in general, we could move toward exposing and penalizing purposeful distortions of the truth in the political arena, since it is ever more critical that voters elect people who can lead the country in effective ways in productive directions, with concern for the welfare of all citizens at the same time.

(1) Media could be required to carry, without cost, analyses of ads and speeches in the media that purport to give “facts” or make assertions that fact-checking reveals to be false, and to carry analyses (limited to 1000 words) that point out the important facts or problems that the ads or speeches ignore or cover up (limited to one such analysis per ad).  Claims that this could not be done objectively are simply false (unless you claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong).  There are many citizens who are quite capable of doing objective analyses of efforts to sway votes.  Analysts would sometimes not have all of the facts or know which “facts” to trust, but this would be important information for voters as well.  Psychological ploys for influence that are used frequently in advertising could be pointed out.

(2) Media could be required to do their own such analyses and insert “corrections” alongside the ads!

(3) All political ads should be required to begin with an all-caps or three-second statement that “_____ wants you to vote (for/against) _______” or “I, _________, want you to vote (for/against) _______” and to explain what any organizations that have sponsored the ads actually are, instead of just listing their made-up and often deceptive names.

(4) All political ads and op-ed pieces on political subjects should be required to acknowledge and in some fashion deal with several of the obvious counterarguments to what is advocated.  (For example, in this essay, several counterarguments are noted and answered, though briefly:  (a) voters can make up their own independent minds; (b) free speech trumps all; (c) the truth is best found through debate between two sides; (d) it’s impossible for anyone to be objective about political issues; and (e) it’s impossible or impractical to try to assess the truth of anything.)

Another restriction that would be in the best interest of democracy would be (4) to limit the money spent by any individual or organization on attempts to sway voters (perhaps $1,000,000 per individual and $20,000,000 per organization, including political parties).  There would be no limit on attempts by individuals or organizations to educate the public about political issues by presenting information that does justice to the complexity of the issues addressed by using a truthful, fair, and balanced approach.  Those who are currently doing the advertising would respond to this by saying that “people” don’t want information, but this simply confirms that current advertising is an attempt to sway voters rather than an attempt to help voters to pick the best qualified candidate.  Since one-sided ads are therefore not protected political speech (at least as proposed above) that allows a citizen to express his or her views or desires, it should not be immune from regulation.

Perhaps another way to frame this would be to say that expressions by citizens about their political views and desires should have no limits, as long as they do just that, but attempts to influence others’ votes through deception, manipulation, lying, or other ploys that attempt to succeed outside of the voters’ awareness should be banned or limited.  Organizations could be permitted unlimited expressions of their views and desires, as long as they were direct statements, such as “Corporation X wants you to vote for [or against] ____” or “The Democratic Party wants you to vote for [or against] ____” or “The Republican Party believes that _____”, and as long as they attempted no influence through indirect means (appearances, lying, deception, appeals to prejudice, subliminal methods, other psychological advertising ploys, etc.).

This is not to suggest that citizens or organizations (including corporations) should be restricted from saying to other citizens “I want you to vote in such-and-such a way,” but that restrictions on deception and lying as means to sway votes could improve our electoral process.  In this “age of appearance” and given the skills at unconscious persuasion that modern advertising has developed, many citizens are swayed unconsciously by appearances and presentation.  This is very human but is destructive to our democracy.

The best defense against voter manipulation through ads and other publicity is, of course, educated and thoughtful voters, who would be able to perceive efforts to influence them inappropriately (i.e., with no accurate reference to relevant facts or issues) and would react negatively to such efforts, thus making the ads counterproductive for their sponsors.  Unfortunately our society is somewhat anti-intellectual and does not encourage citizens to develop their intelligence (or their emotional intelligence), and it encourages in citizens the attitude of a consumer who waits for products or ideas to be fed to him.  Therefore, exposure of and restrictions on purposeful lying and deception are becoming more and more needed in order for our democracy to remain healthy.

If we believe that voters are entrusted with responsibility for the government and that their decisions determine the quality of government, then to attempt inducements to sway votes that do not help voters make better decisions is actually corruptive and a corruption of democracy.  One could argue that people who try to manipulate voters are anti-democracy and clearly do not believe in democracy (which as an ideal would operate from decisions by the total body of an informed electorate of equal citizens).  They believe simply in getting their own way.  They do not believe that the voters should decide elections but instead believe that their desire to win elections should take precedence over voters’ independent decisions.  The interesting fact is, though, that we are so used to efforts to manipulate voters that we hardly notice (except to complain about the number of political ads on TV that we have to suffer through before every election).

To raise the issue of manipulation and deception in political ads might cause us to also attend seriously to the manipulation and deception in all advertising, but this would challenge even more broadly our acceptance of lying in general.

Clearly human beings will continue to try to influence one another in order to achieve goals and to achieve enough agreement about rules and social order that that order can be maintained, so influence attempts are in general “normal.”  Hopefully more of these attempts to influence can be structured to help others make better decisions for themselves and not to get others to do everything our own way or for our own advantage.  However, to extend our tolerance for manipulation to political decisions is to illustrate our own neglect of and ignorance of the concept of democracy, no matter how much we praise it and pretend to hold it to our bosoms on the Fourth of July.  Neither a mob, a rabble, nor a stable of robots can be accepted as a model for voters in a democracy, but these models are what candidates subtly encourage when they focus solely on divisiveness and emotion in order to win and when they bend their considerable influence only to induce voters to vote for them without thinking. 

We tolerate lying mainly because it seems too hard to identify the lies, and we are proud of our notion of a “rough and tumble democracy,” but when lying becomes powerful enough to control your life to the liar’s advantage, your tolerance of lying must change (just as our preferences for privacy are shifting due to the fact that individuals or small groups can now rather easily kill thousands of people at one stroke).  A spirited debate is no longer the most accurate representation of our politics in action--it is now the slick, professionally produced lie that is capable of controlling our lives.

Human beings will continue to attempt to influence each other, but it is time to have some rules of the game, beyond “let the buyer beware.”  It would be nice if we could motivate candidates and others to be more truthful for the long-term sake of our democracy or to be more truthful to help voters do the best job they can as voters, but these motives must grow as our society matures, and this will take time.  We insist on some degree of accuracy in drug advertisements on TV, and we insist on some attempt at the truth on the part of witnesses in court.  It is time to also insist on some degree of truth-telling and transparency in political campaigns.

What Can You Do?

There are several things that you (all of us) can do to improve the usefulness and climate of political intercourse in our society.  (1) Examine your own beliefs carefully.  Get acquainted with the weaknesses in your positions and the counterarguments to them.  Acknowledge and seriously answer these counterarguments when you discuss the issue with yourself (as an internal debate) and with others.    If you can’t do this, then your positions are not as obvious, secure, or useful as you thought.  (2) Insist that others (candidates, friends, speakers, newspapers, TV journalists) also acknowledge and deal with the counterarguments to their positions.  Politicians are experts at avoiding this and will have to be pressed hard to do it.  (3) Pay more attention to saying the truth when you make political assertions.  If all you are saying is “I think this” or “I want it to be this way,”  without much justification, then just say that, rather than asserting that you have convincing evidence, saying that people that don’t agree must be daft, or using some other specious argument in your efforts to induce others to agree with you.  (4) Reexamine your belief in democracy.  If you think that decisions in a democracy should be made by whoever can get more people to side with him or whoever can shout the loudest, then start shouting.  You will end up with (and have to live with) a contentious mob who can turn on you, regardless of your rights or needs, whenever someone else can shout louder.  If, on the other hand, you believe that decisions in a democracy are best made through careful thinking and with consideration for the views of everyone, then live that model and do what you can to help others see its advantages through your behavior!  (5) Vote for candidates that have the greatest motivation to do the best possible job for the country and for all citizens, rather than for those who want the status and power or those who want to force part of the country to do what the other part wants it to.
 

essays\politicalspeech

 

One Nation Or Competing Groups?

 

ONE NATION OR COMPETING GROUPS?

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.     9-12

 

ABSTRACT:  The current political status of the United States as composed of competing rather than cooperating groups is explored and is posited as the major reason for governmental gridlock.

 

KEY WORDS:  governmental gridlock, political parties, competition, cooperation

 

Many citizens are unhappy with the recent gridlock in government in the United States.  Congress often seems to be in a fairly constant state of deadlock, incapable of or unwilling to pass any legislation until some deadline or crisis forces action.  There is no centrist voice in politics saying that he or she wants to do as much as possible for all Americans, without making ideological commitments, rather than trying to gain votes by promising to carry out a number of small and relatively extreme policies (which are almost never actually carried out once the candidate is in office).  The two-party political system, a warlike metaphor for politics, a consumption-driven trend toward self-centeredness, media attention to special interest groups, and the growing diversity in the country are mainly responsible for this.

Having only two major political parties creates a tendency for those two to oppose each other on major policy questions (and to evolve so as to oppose each other more and more).  Once opposing views are taken on a major policy question, people gravitate to the side that they agree with more, and by the time opposing views on a number of major issues are taken, the two political parties become more entrenched and look like camps (or armies) doing battle.  This solidarity is an illusion, though, because most voters feel strongly about (and therefore identify with their party) on only one or two issues.  The tendency for people to form groups makes it seem like there is more solidarity in the group than there actually is.  If there were seven or eight somewhat smaller political parties, this illusion of huge blocks fighting each other would be diminished.

Politics in this country (and probably in many countries) is viewed largely through military metaphors of conflict, loyalties, battles, and winning.  This brings out our adrenaline, since being in a fight makes it seem to us as if we are in some sort of danger, whether we are or not, and it promotes solidarity with other party members, even if we don’t like them or disagree with them on many issues.  There is no necessity (other than selfishness) for politics to be a struggle or battle.  It is viewed “naturally” as a struggle or battle only because we want our own way on matters that seem significant to us.

Businesses have nurtured the false belief that consumers who purchase their products can “have it their way,” which has encouraged the narcissism in us and encouraged us to believe that we “should” be able to have it our way.  It is natural to human beings to want to reduce all barriers to gratification, but when this is translated into politics, it suggests to us that we “should” be able to have the country the way we alone want it, which is certainly unrealistic (and undemocratic as well, if you think about it).  A greater appreciation for the unmanageability of reality and of our lives might make us more humble with respect to our assumption that others “should” agree with us and that since they are simply pig-headed if they don’t agree with us, we should fight with them about the matter.

Political parties have tried to gain voters by appealing to a number of small special interest groups, with interests that may be consistent with but not of much interest to the majority of party members or voters.  Stopping immigration or abortion rights might be examples.  These groups tend to get more publicity than they “deserve,” because of the media’s desire for arousing and inflammatory things to report.  Media coverage actually fuels the conflicts inherent in these special interest positions.  (Media would argue that the public should know about these groups and their causes, but they ignore the fact that people are not rational, logical beings and that what we see becomes our assumption about what is reality.)

The growing diversity in this country is psychologically threatening to most citizens, since human beings are by nature fearful of difference, and if diverse groups have different views on values questions, this threat is greater.  The “accepted wisdom” is that we should celebrate diversity and tolerate those who are different from us, but fundamentally if those differences suggest that our way of life is going to be altered, we will be scared and will want to ensure that what we treasure will not be changed or harmed.  As long as the groups of those who are “different” are quite small, tolerance is possible, but as those groups get larger (whites will be a minority in California in a year or two), the feelings of threat grow, and this motivates us to identify with and support groups that promise to fight to preserve what we value.

 

The Cooperative Alternative

The alternative to this competitive, martial approach to politics is the view that governmental decisions should always be made on the basis of what is best for everyone in the country—in other words, a cooperative rather than a competitive approach.  In this cooperative approach, all parties (and individuals) would seek to understand the views and values of all other parties and people and would work together to find the best possible policies and solutions to problems that we all have in common.

Of course, each group cannot have its own preferred outcome in every matter, which means that (1) actions taken may be limited by the conclusion that some group’s values are important enough for other groups to limit what they get from the action taken; (2) all groups may agree to take some actions that benefits only one group, as long as all groups feel equally benefited in the long run; and (3) groups may “take turns” in getting what they want, as long as none of these actions is actually harmful to other groups.  The key to making this work is that in the long run all groups feel that their values and needs are respected and that they are honored sufficiently in actions taken by the total group, and that all groups benefit roughly equally from the totality of actions taken.

While a cooperative approach would reduce the level and sounds of struggle, there would still be expressions of differences.  Representatives should express clearly and completely the needs and views of their constituents, and this will always involve some differences.  A cooperative approach would still include raised voices and impassioned pleas, but it would conclude with the satisfaction of being heard and being taken seriously, rather than with a renewed determination to “win” eventually and to “vanquish” everyone who disagrees.

Currently in this country, we have a “winner take all” attitude, with which the majority party feels entitled to get everything it can for itself and its various interest groups before it loses power again.  The other party feels disrespected and disenfranchised, of course, and so feels perfectly justified in doing the same thing when it comes back into power.  The balance of voters has become quite even over the years between the two parties, as the two parties have jockeyed to attract people interested in various issues, as well as defining their worldviews in such a way as to oppose and exclude the worldviews of the other party.

Many people in this country would prefer a cooperative approach to the current “struggle of opposites” approach, but they are ignored because to recognize their desire would tend to take away the power of the current parties (who seem currently to exist in order to do battle and impose their way, and not to find solutions).  The current parties maintain themselves by finding and emphasizing seemingly unbridgeable differences, so that people will send them money (in order to defend what the contributors view as threatened values).

As one small example, currently the Republican party says that the country needs a more business-friendly climate (stable policies, available capital, low business taxes) in order for there to be more jobs for workers, while the Democratic party says that businesses need regulation in order to prevent further economic catastrophes (which are the inevitable result of the boom-bust cycle that our capital markets encourage) and that the government should use its spending and interest-influencing power to stimulate business activity and hence the addition of more jobs.  These are obviously not incompatible policy positions.  Obviously the country needs to encourage businesses to flourish, and just as obviously, from history, businesses must be prevented from taking advantage of and even harming consumers (risky stock market vehicles, shoddy or harmful products, pollution, etc.).  Both goals should be pursued, and discussions with a cooperative assumption behind them (that the goal is to get both sides as much of what they want as possible) are a feasible way to get the best solutions we can at the time, without rancor and strife.

The main obstacles to having a cooperative approach with a goal of benefiting both sides are self-centeredness and justification.  When an individual says “I want what I want, and I don’t care what anyone else wants,” the opportunity for finding joint solutions is reduced.  It seems possible, particularly in our present gridlocked situation, that by cooperating, everyone might benefit more than they will benefit from gridlock and antagonism.  As noted above, it would help if we were more humble about our “right” to have things our own way.

The other enemy of cooperation and compromise is ideological overlays onto real-life problems.  Any time that polarities are created (pro-business, anti-business; pro-environment, anti-environment), each side tries to justify its position not just with facts and rational conclusions but also with external justifications (“President Reagan said....., and therefore it must be true, no matter what the facts are”).  Any time an individual’s or religion’s ideas about what the deity wants are used to justify a position, the possibilities of compromise are virtually eliminated.  To say that God sees abortion as murder makes it impossible to compromise (although still possible to work toward reducing unnecessary or inappropriate abortions).

One of the purposes of having representative government is that representatives can represent the unique needs of their particular constituents.  If representatives act only on the needs of their own constituents, however, the result is likely to be a climate of selfishness and battle, with back-room deals and vote-trading as the only ways to get things done, with the only measure of a representative being how much bacon he or she brought home.  In other words, power rules and the goal of each constituency is to get as much as possible from the public trough before others get it.  If, however, all representatives present the needs of their constituents to the total group of representatives, and those representatives then choose among various ways to meet as many of those unique needs of all groups as possible, then most constituencies will benefit with each decision, and all constituencies will feel that they are being “taken care of” by the total group as well as they can be.

Can Things Change?

Having the total group of representatives be responsible for the welfare of all constituencies would be such a stunning change in the operations of most assemblies or congresses that we must ask whether it is at all possible.  Today, most voting is based on agreement with the candidate on vague values or a specific issue, together with popularity, likeability, and appearance.  Most people who get elected strive to put forth a persona that appeals to voters, regardless of whether it accurately portrays the candidate.  The change proposed here would suggest electing candidates for their ability to care about the total citizenry, represent their particular constituency effectively as needed, and make careful and complicated judgments between competing proposals.  The change proposed here would also require that decisions be based on the merits of the proposals and not on which stance is likely to get the representative re-elected (which might require change in the ways that campaigns are currently financed).  Perhaps we can all begin to require statements from candidates about whether they would approach things cooperatively or competitively and to cast our votes for those who can function in a cooperative model of representation.

 

blog\competitioningovernment

 

 

 

 

Fairness in Dealing with the Accused

FAIRNESS IN DEALING WITH THE ACCUSED

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.    7-12

ABSTRACT:  The “rush to judgment” tendency with regard to some crimes is explored, and fairness for all accused is requested.

KEY WORDS:  fairness, rush to judgment, sex crimes

Recently there have been a number of accusations against teachers and other school personnel in Los Angeles of sexual improprieties of various sorts with students.  Naturally this is troubling to parents, but these cases have produced demonstrations by some parents saying that they should have been informed earlier about the accusations, particularly when there were previous suspicions about these same personnel that were not substantiated.  No reason is given regarding why parents should have been informed, but one might surmise that parents would rush to remove their children from classes with those teachers, whether or not the teacher was guilty.  The L.A. Unified School District was so concerned about these demonstrations that they even removed the entire staff of one school and transferred all of the staff to other schools.  In another town, a principal was fired for investigating verbal sexual behavior on the part of a seven-year old, determining that it did not rise to the level required for reporting to authorities and deciding not to report the behavior to Child Protective Services.  (This incident aroused considerable support from parents for the principal, who was eventually rehired, as a teacher.)  The Penn State University sex scandal provides another example, in which university leaders decided not to act on certain information about possible abuse of children by an assistant coach (quite apart from the college team and his job with the college team but using school facilities), and when it became a public cause célèbre, the NCAA gave severe sanctions to the university football program, even though technically speaking, there was no breaking of NCAA rules by the team or active coaches.

People in our culture are so upset by sexual behavior by children and by inappropriate sexual behavior with children by those who work with children that any case can readily become a crusade against the terrible scourge of child sexual abuse.  Reactions by authorities have edged closer and closer to firing personnel without complete or rational investigation of the situation, as public furor makes it sound as if the whole school system is somehow blameworthy, which is certainly untrue.

In all kinds of legal cases (not just cases involving sex) media coverage of sensational trials across the country results in demonstrations and accusations by those who have decided on guilt or innocence, far ahead of the jury and the court.  These people know nothing about the actual facts of the case but have decided, even so, whether the accused is guilty. 

These decisions would seem to represent whether those individuals want the accused to be guilty or innocent, and these wishes then serve the desires of the individual for “how things should be,” rather than how things actually are.  This is an example of how human beings make up what they claim to be real in order to feel better themselves.  Another human characteristic that these premature claims illustrate is how hard it is for us to tolerate the unknown (“tolerate ambiguity”).  Again, many of us prefer to make up what we claim to be true, rather than continue “not to know.”  Yet another reason for people to presume the accused to be guilty is to punish or get revenge (even before any court action), as if this will “even up the score” and put things back in equilibrium.  Some of these premature deciders feel so strongly about child sexual abuse that they would like to make an example of anyone even accused of it, even if he or she is not guilty.

I would urge you to reflect on your own behavior in this regard, every time an accusation is announced.  Do you take a position on guilt or innocence, even when you don’t know much about the case?  (What you learn on TV about a case almost never gives enough detail about the facts to make any sort of decision or prediction.  The internet is the same; people gossiping on the internet know no more than TV viewers.)  Are you able to just put it all on hold until proper investigation is done and a court processes this information?  I would urge you to attempt to tolerate the ambiguity and your wish for things to be a certain way without making up falsehoods in order that you can feel better.  (I know how long that process usually takes, as it often seems pointlessly endless!)  Not only might this lead to better dealings with reality in general (better decisions, more appropriate behavior, etc.), but if more people could delay their decisions and not make assumptions, it would moderate the significant danger that all of us face of having accusations of sexual impropriety made against us! 

Yes, it’s true.  Not only could children you interact with (neighbors, kids at a park, students, kids in a team) make up a lie about you, to get back at you for something or just as a lark, but any adult with negative feelings toward you could make up a lie accusing you of sexual improprieties with children.  Even if you live alone and have no contact with children, just because you walk around the block every night for exercise creates an opportunity for someone to “see” an inappropriate act on your part.  You would be completely unable to prove otherwise, and even if no child would acknowledge that you had done the act, this lie would greatly affect your reputation in the community and give you considerable grief with respect to law enforcement.  You know that many people, even some of your friends, would jump to conclusions about you (“You never can tell about people, can you?”).  The tendency of people to believe the worst and to gossip about it when accusations are made leads to even more false accusations being made.  You might think that such a thing could or would never happen to you, but I assure you that many, many people have thought that and found themselves falsely accused anyway.

Similarly, it is safer for all of us if employers can take appropriate action when such accusations are made.  Knowing that a significant percentage of these are false accusations, employers should take only actions necessary to protect children from future possible future harm, and this rarely requires that the employee be fired.  Even if the employee’s job is working with children, it is inappropriate to fire the employee before the courts find the employee guilty.  You would not want to be fired if you were falsely accused, so others deserve the same tentative presumption of possible innocence.  Public relations problems do not justify firing an employee who is innocent.

Our legal traditions include the presumption that we are innocent until proven guilty, and this dictum was and is needed for exactly these kinds of situations, when sizeable numbers of people want the person to be guilty and don’t really care if he or she is guilty or not.  (The opposite situation is covered by the dictum that “no one is above the law,” when sizeable numbers of people want someone to be innocent.)  There is no doubt that it is frustrating that justice often takes so long, but remember that you could easily be the accused, regardless of whether you have done anything wrong, and you would wish others to be fair and withhold judgment until the proper legal proceedings had done what they could to determine your guilt or innocence.

blog\rushtojudgment

The Essential Immorality of the Credit Card Business

THE ESSENTIAL IMMORALITY OF THE CREDIT CARD BUSINESS

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.     3-12

ABSTRACT:  The immoral nature and socially destructive consequences of financial aspects of current credit cards is explained.  These moral issues are explored in terms of possibilities of a more caring, cooperative society through an ethic of voluntarily not taking advantage of others.

KEY WORDS:  credit, free, no cost, cooperation, competition, caring, concern, morality

The current structure of credit card arrangements allows the card holder to borrow funds from the credit card company for payment to creditors (businesses).  The borrowed money is transferred promptly by the card company to the business, and that borrowing is repaid later by the card holder.  A few credit card companies charge a monthly fee or an annual fee for use of the card, in addition to interest charged on unpaid balances of borrowed money. 

Most card companies do not charge interest on the loans for the first month or partial month of the borrowing, so if the card holder pays the card company for the borrowed funds at the first opportunity (at the end of the current monthly cycle), he pays no interest.  If he does not pay at the first opportunity, then interest is charged for the borrowed amounts.  At the same time, the business that accepts credit card payment pays the credit card company a fee (usually two to three percent of the purchase price, though this has been lowered by federal law recently).  The card company therefore makes money in two ways—from the businesses that accept credit card transactions and also from the card holder if he does not pay back the borrowed money right away.

There are several reasons why this arrangement is essentially immoral and socially destructive.  For purposes of this essay, a behavior is deemed immoral if a person using the behavior aims to gain something from another person while also, by the same behavior, harming that other person.  A behavior is deemed socially destructive if it leads to greater distrust, less social harmony, and less desire to wholeheartedly cooperate with others in the larger group.

Economically Helpful and Moral Aspects

(1) Providing a simple alternative to using cash for all purchases can be useful for many people (although, as you will see below, it should be paid for and not a free service).  It can also be argued that not charging interest to the borrower if the loan is repaid quickly is an incentive that encourages people to repay borrowed money quickly, which is generally to their advantage.

Immoral and Socially Destructive Aspects of Credit Cards

(1) Credit card companies know full well that many people in our society will over-purchase (buy more than they can reasonably expect to pay for) if given an opportunity.  This is due to our desire to have what we want now rather than waiting for it or saving for it.  Credit cards provide that opportunity, both because credit limits are routinely higher than the re-payment power of credit card holders and because credit card holders can obtain multiple cards in order to buy even more.  Over-purchasing complicates the lives of those who do it and can lead to financial ruin in a fair number of cases.  Thus, credit card companies knowingly attempt to profit from a weakness of credit card holders that will make the lives of those credit card holders more difficult, and this is immoral.  This outcome results also in defaults on debt and is therefore socially destructive.

(2) A significant amount of income for the credit card companies comes from relatively high interest charged to card holders on the borrowed money.  While a number of card holders pay their credit card bills every month and therefore do not pay interest, a sizeable number of card holders carry a balance and pay considerable interest every month (often paying only interest or so little that the total bill keeps getting larger).  This group of card holders is in perpetual debt, since they use credit cards to purchase items that they want to have now (instead of saving for them) but that they can’t afford, in the sense that they don’t have current income sufficient to pay off the borrowed money quickly and that hence they end up paying whatever they can month after month, in effect paying exorbitant amounts for their purchases when the interest on those purchases is added to the purchase price.

Credit card companies know full well that this group of card holders exists (people that will borrow beyond their means and will therefore rarely ever pay off their balances) and consider them, therefore, to be a long-term, captive source of income.  Credit card companies have constructed their business model to gain from the inability of this group of card holders to manage their money (and their buying behavior) better.  Since they aim to gain from offering credit (borrowing opportunities) to these arguably monetarily incompetent people, and since they cause harm to these people by enticing them into paying exorbitant amounts of money for their purchases (purchase price plus months of interest), they are seeking to gain from taking advantage of an incompetence (or disability) of these people, and the business model is therefore immoral.  (Of course, the business model is perfectly legal, and it would not be immoral if we did not define as immoral efforts to gain from someone while at the same time harming him.)

Credit card companies (and many other businesses that benefit from the inabilities of a sizeable group of consumers to manage their money better) would argue that no one is forcing these people to use credit cards and that everyone is responsible for his or her decisions and behavior.  The underlying issue, though, is the immorality of designing a business on purpose to take advantage of some consumers. 

Another example of this sort of “taking advantage” of consumers is price-fixing by businesses that have a monopoly, such as real estate agents that charge a percentage of the house sale price rather than a fee relating to the work that they actually do.  Real estate agents would defend themselves by saying that consumers could look for sale-by-owner houses and avoid the agent fee, but most consumers do not have the confidence in their understanding of the legal issues involved to take that route, so they go to real estate agents, who charge unfairly.  Real estate agents would also say that agents are not required to charge a percentage of sale price, but, of course, if they do not, they are restricted from using the multiple listing service, which is the best resource for buying and selling houses.  The incentives are arranged so that almost all agents go along, happily, with the prevailing arrangement and therefore charge consumers more money than they actually earn (if we assume that prices in general should relate to the actual cost or work done).  A similar argument can be made about the transaction fee the credit card companies charge to businesses, because it is a percentage of the borrowed money and not a standard transaction fee.  There is no rationale for charging a percentage of the borrowed money as a transaction fee, except to make as much money as possible.

Businesses would argue strenuously that in our “free country” people must take care of themselves, including avoiding getting themselves into financial trouble, but I am suggesting that we have more moral responsibility for our fellow men than to allow each other to figure out ways to take advantage of others based on their ignorance or inabilities.

(3) The credit card business model requires that large numbers of people use credit cards, which will cause large numbers of businesses to feel that to compete with other businesses who do accept credit cards, they also must accept credit cards from consumers (and therefore lose money by paying the transaction fee required).  The group of consumers who cannot manage their buying behavior well may not be large enough to to induce large numbers of businesses to accept credit cards, so credit card companies offer the use of the cards free to those who pay their balances monthly (and hence pay no interest on their borrowing), so that the number of credit card users will be large enough to leverage most businesses into accepting credit cards for payment.  (Credit card companies might argue that businesses that accept credit cards get enough additional business from doing so that it offsets the transaction charges that the businesses pay, but I have seen no data to support this.)

Offering the use of cards for free is fundamentally immoral, since it distorts the proper relationship between buyer (credit card users) and seller (credit card company), which would be for all credit card users to pay a per transaction fee, so that they know clearly what they are getting and at what price.  The reader might wonder in amazement how offering something free could be bad.  It is “bad” because it is not motivated by a desire to give as many people as possible a free service, but rather it is motivated by the need to “use” those free users as bait for businesses that will then feel unable to resist accepting credit cards as payment and therefore will pay credit card companies the transaction fees that form an important part of their income.  This enables the credit card companies to “feed off of” that smaller group of people who cannot manage their buying behavior well, are therefore constantly in debt, and therefore pay endless amounts of interest to the credit card companies.  Those who manage their money well (pay loans off quickly) benefit, and card companies benefit, all at the expense of those who cannot manage their buying in such a way that they do not pay excessive interest.

This behavior (offering things for free) is similar to the come-ons used by other businesses when advertising a small number of items for reduced prices in order to attract larger numbers of people (most of whom will arrive too late to get the reduced price but may still buy something else from the store).  The store is not motivated to provide any product as cheap as possible, but rather it “uses” the desire for something “free” to motivate people to come to the store, even if they do not get anything free.

As noted above, the honest (that is, clear and straightforward) behavior would be for everyone to pay directly the (same) cost of whatever product or service they receive (rather than getting something free or getting a discounted price).  Otherwise, the transaction is dishonest, and this dishonesty is inevitably harmful to individuals and is therefore immoral.  Some business people would argue strenuously that they are free to charge any price they want to any consumer, and it is true that this behavior is currently legal, but charging different prices is always for purposes of manipulation of others on the part of the seller.

(4) Even more fundamentally, the credit card business operates (as do most businesses) on the principle of making as much money as possible (in as many ways as possible) rather than on the principle of charging what a product or service costs, plus a reasonable profit.  The credit card transaction charge to businesses might be sufficient to pay for the costs of the credit given plus a reasonable profit, but card companies charge interest to borrowers as well.  The interest charges to borrowers might be sufficient by themselves to pay for the borrowing and provide a reasonable profit, but the card company charges merchants also.  The payment(s) to the card company have no necessary relationship to the cost to the card company of providing the credit.  They are simply as high as they can be and still induce enough people to use the credit cards to make the enterprise profitable.  This is part of “the American way,” of course, which is to get as much money from others as they are willing to give, which means that any profit level is justified.  Since providers of products or services never tell consumers what the product actually costs to make or provide, consumers never know what the profit level is and therefore never know if it is reasonable or not. 

We say that we are “protected” from overcharging by competition between various makers and providers, but as we permit more and more product makers and service providers to get larger and larger (justified by economies of scale and promises of better, unified operations), we knowingly reduce the amount of competition that “protects” us.  Our desire to get as much money as possible, morally or immorally, also prompts businesses to conspire in uniformly charging enough to make unreasonable profits, even if there is no communication among them and they all just increase their prices to keep up with the others.

Advocates of free markets argue that an appropriate price will be determined by the interactions of competing providers and consumers, essentially arguing that whatever price consumers are willing to pay is a “fair” price and that there are no “unreasonable profits.”  According to this position, a bread supplier charging $100 for a loaf of bread in a disaster area is justified in doing so if people will pay this price, though this ignores the fact that only a few people can pay this price and most may go hungry.

Basic Societal Issues

The basic social problem with free markets is that they accept the assumption that all members of society are competing with all other members of society to gain from a pool of limited resources.  This drive to gain and acquire motivates people to strive to do more or better than others, as well as calling forth the willingness of most people to deceive, defraud, and overcharge others, and free market philosophies accept these selfish and harmful behaviors as the price of “freedom” and of getting people to produce more.  The positive side of this drive is that people expend considerable energies in finding out what others will pay for and then supplying that product or service, perhaps (if there is some true competition), in increasingly efficient and inexpensive ways.

An alternative market philosophy would assume that people can function basically as cooperators rather than competitors.  This cooperation might suggest that people seek only “reasonable” profit margins, rather than seeking to get rich quickly by making profits as high as possible, since to seek only “reasonable” profits would make that product or service available to others at a lower price.  This view has been a staple of socialist and communist societies, and unfortunately history suggests that government-controlled economies have enough corruption in their design and oversight and lead to enough lethargy among workers that they have not succeeded over time.  (Actually they have been capable of sustaining those societies, but the desire of members of those societies for more freedoms and more products and services has eventually eroded the will to impose cooperation on the populace.)  It is clear that self-interest on the part of all participants in a modern economy is necessary, but that self-interest need not extend to taking advantage of others, by lying, withholding information, or psychological manipulation.

An argument can be made that advertising that is designed to induce consumers to buy is immoral, since the aim of the advertising is to induce consumers to buy more than they otherwise would (more than they would if they simply regarded their own needs in the absence of advertising). It becomes immoral if we assume that buying more than one otherwise would buy can be harmful (from the increased but induced buying).  (Seeking the personal information needed to do targeted advertising, as is being done and debated on the internet, could also be seen as immoral, since the purpose of such personal information is to assist businesses in selling more to consumers than consumers would buy in the absence of such advertising.)  A large economy needs methods of informing consumers about consumption opportunities, but our current form of advertising aims to psychologically manipulate consumers to buy, which at times is not in the best interest of those consumers.

To generalize from seeking only “reasonable” profits, not using psychologically manipulative advertising, and not misrepresenting products, the basic ethic suggested here is simply not taking advantage of others, which means not trying to deceive them, not trying to appeal to emotions unrelated to the product or service at issue (usually pride, status, and superiority feelings), and only charging costs plus a “reasonable” profit.

Americans like having the opportunity to make large amounts of money, by any legal means possible, including deceiving and lying to consumers (viz., much of what we see in advertising; the privacy policies and contracts that no one can understand; etc.).  Perhaps we do not want to require anyone else to tell the truth or to disclose the complete truth so that we ourselves can also remain free to deceive and lie to our fellow citizens (since we fear deep down that if we tell the truth and are transparent about our behaviors, we will lose our “competitive advantage,” others will criticize or turn away from us, and others will use our honesty and transparency to take advantage of us).

You may be concerned about shifting from our current moral stance, which is that each person is completely responsible for her own behavior, so that the rest of us are free, morally, to try by everything but outright lies to induce others to buy from us or to use our services.  I am not suggesting that people should be less responsible for themselves, but rather that in addition to that, we would have a happier and more happily interrelated society than we do now if we also were responsible ourselves for not trying to get others to give us money (in return for products or services) when to do so would harm them (directly, or indirectly by putting them in more difficult circumstances because of our transaction, such as excessive debt).  It would be a change from “sell if at all possible” to “sell if it is appropriate.”  You may scream, “But only that other person can know if more of my product or service will be in his best interest,” but I would suggest that in some instances, you, the provider or seller, can in fact see that more of your product or service is not the best choice for the consumer.  This need not be an excessive burden for you, the seller.  An example might be declining to sell an expensive car to a mentally deficient (but still legally competent) man who has just barely enough income to live on but has just received a small inheritance that is just enough to pay for the car (but not the insurance or upkeep).  Another example might be requiring a couple who have declared bankruptcy twice to get financial counseling before you sell them a house.  A further example might be deciding not to sell cigarettes in your store because you believe the health consequences of smoking to be considerable.  The moral requirement would be to take some action (additional information or advice for the buyer, discussion to ensure that the buyer “knows” what she is getting into, etc.), out of concern for the buyer.  In some of these examples, the seller might also decline due to unacceptable risk for the seller, but the moral issue is having concern for the buyer as well.  (It is part of the ethical code of professional psychologists to terminate treatment if the client is not benefiting, and the ethical codes of other professions, including salespersons, could be similarly modified.)

This concern follows from the growing realization in our rich society that people at least sometimes and perhaps even often do not know what is in their best interest and do not act in their best interest, as has been demonstrated by our problems with obesity, substance use, and over-spending in general.  It is becoming clear that our innate or evolutionarily-developed capacities are not really up to the task of coping with having more than we need, which has become possible in developed economies.  If we were not so rich, and if we did not have so much preferentially-disposable income (but had to use almost all of it on food, basic housing, and other essentials), this would not be as much of a concern.

This little bit of additional concern and caring for others would make our society a more comfortable and less anxious social context in which to live, because it would reduce the constant vigilance that is currently needed to protect ourselves from the many around us who we know are always looking for ways to take advantage of us, and it would allow us to be more relaxed and friendly with each other, because of the lessened resentment we would feel about those efforts to take advantage of us.  After considering the arguments in this essay, one could still think that since human beings are biologically incapable of having a caring attitude toward everyone, we should therefore simply continue with our competitive society and enjoy its material fruits, but it does not seem proven yet that people cannot expand their circles of caring significantly.  It might even be that the fears of not having enough, when that was an ever-present reality, as it was for people prior to the modern age, were too great to permit a more caring society, but it may also be that having enough, as many of us do now, does allow us to relax those fears and give our natural capacities to care the chance to apply to more of those in society (to enlarge our circle of those we care about enough to avoid taking advantage of them).  It could be that eliminating “sell if at all possible” and eliminating manipulative advertising and free credit card use might reduce our Gross National Product somewhat, but these things might also lead us to be happier.

There are many, many people in this country who feel that they have some moral responsibility not to take advantage of others by any means--with excessive charges or profits, with lies or fraud, or with psychologically manipulative advertising.  These people generally do not “make the news” and remain anonymous to our public perceptions of society.  Also, the desires of the recent “Occupy” movements seem to be consistent with the focus in this essay—to have a society that is more cooperative and less predatory.  The keys to having a more cooperative society are (1) to decide that we want the kind of society that is produced by higher standards of honesty and transparency with others, (2) that we want the kind of society that involves more citizens having concern for others, (3) to accept the possible slightly lower standard of living that might occur if everyone did operate in a caring and cooperative way rather than competitively, (4) to accept the restrictions on ourselves of not using personal contact, false information, and advertising to “take advantage” of others, and (5) to begin to negatively reinforce (protest to, boycott, publicly criticize, personally complain to, etc.) sellers that try to take advantage of others and to gently point out the options for caring more for others as they present themselves.

essays\unfinished\creditcardimmorality