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