Is it okay for say a presidential administration to mislead the electorate to sell a policy that wouldn’t be accepted otherwise?
If so when, how and why?
I forgot:
Inspired by conversation in this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197900&perpage=40&pagenumber=2
You’re asking about the ethics of persuasion, which are determined almost wholly by the specific social context in which the persuasion takes place. In general, however, most ethicists would agree that the greater stake those being persuaded have in the benefits or risks associated with the decision toward which they’re being persuaded, the more stringent are the ethical requirements.
Edward L. Bernays, considered by many the inventor of modern public relations, and the author of such works as Propaganda (1928); and The Engineering of Consent (1947), offered the following ethics, which I would submit as vital for the leader of a Republic who wishes to obtain informed consent from the representatives of the public:[ol][li]Do Not Use False Evidence[]Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning[]Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself[]Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest[]Do Not Cover Up Consequences[]Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals[]Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations[]Do Not Pretend Certainty[]Do Not Advocate What You Don’t Believe Yourself.[/ol][/li]I’m pretty sure this administration (or at least, this President) hasn’t violated #9.
This wouldn’t have anything to do with any current events would it?
The simple answer, for a democracy, is no. A democracy assumes that the governement is of the people, not of the governed.
The propnents of most laws and or policies often mislead the public in several ways:
- Proponents exaggerate the problem
- They exaggerate the effectiveness of the solution
- They minimize the costs
- They ignore or minimize the negative consequences
Take prescription drugs for seniors, e.g.:
-
Proponents exaggerate the number of seniors who must “choose between food and medicine.”
-
They don’t mention severe limitations on the benfits.
-
Their cost estimates are probably low. (Every cost within Medicare has been underestimated, many be orders of magnitude.)
-
They don’t speculate on unintended consequences.
Or, Campaign Finance Reform is another good example.
So, whether we like it or not, it is accepted practice to mislead the electorate, to a degree. However, there must be a limit. At a certain point one feels that the proponents have crossed the line between normal hyping and lying.
It may be impossible to answer this question independently of the particular issue. E.g., for those favoring CFR, no amount of exaggeration is too much. For those against it, the slightest whiff of error is a mortal sin.
Dec: I can’t disagree more. The fact that it is done all the time does not make it right. You would be a fool to assume it wasn’t done, but it is not an unreasonable request of gov’t officials in this country to tell the truth.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time,
You can fool all of the people some of the time,
But you can never fool all of the people all of the time.”
Its pretty much a given that any govt (especially ours) will do whatever they need to do to get things done. Given that our govt is made out of lawyers and career politicians, you can bet that some of their methods are wrong. Results are now what matters. I can forgive certain aspects of political mendacity if all things turn out better in the end. However, politicians and govt lie usually because they are side stepping certain issues to get what they want. If these issues are worth preserving, then I would take umbrage with their sneakiness.
Basically, if the means by which they use to achieve their end causes more harm than good in the long run, then I would object to it. Sometimes, making sure they do things truthfully is enuf.
Odd to see the two of you disagree on something.
xenophon,
Very interesting.
december
Do you think that items one through four on your list could all be accomplished within the bounds of the nine items listed by Xenophon?
and X~S,
First, based on what you’ve posted, would you be happy with a dictatorship as long as the repression/ opppression and lack of political voice did more good than harm?
Second, what is the place in your evaluation process for things that do the most good? If you’re happy with merely “more good than harm” how is the better of two good alternatives chosen?
Third, is it good to increase the level of education and knowledge of the electorate?
- Use False Evidence
2. Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning
3. Falsely Represent Yourself
4. Conceal Your Purpose or Interest
5. Cover Up Consequences
6. Use Baseless Emotional Appeals
7. Oversimplify Complex Situations
8. Pretend Certainty
9. Advocate What You Don’t Believe Yourself.
Describes every president we’ve had since at least 1960.
But you’ll only condemn it if it’s used for a goal you disagree with, eh?