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
