Concepts in Politics: Morality, Immorality and Evil

“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” -- Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do not Produce Responsive Governments, Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels, 2016

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior; a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person

Evil: a manifestation of profound human immorality and wickedness, especially in people's actions; intending to harm; human malevolence

Malevolence: having or showing a wish to harm or do evil to others

Can anything be agreed on?

Concepts of morality, immorality and evil can possibly be defined such that most people would agree on the definitions. But because these concepts are essentially contested, there will always be significant disagreement on what the definitions mean and how or whether they apply in specific real world situations. For example, some people believe that abortion is immoral and others believe it is moral. This concern applies to politics, which is generally more subjective than objective and more irrational than rational.

Is there anything at least semi-objective about politics that a solid majority of people, say more than about 75%, would agree on? From what I can tell, there probably are some at least partly objective concepts that most people would agree are important to believe in or adhere to. They include respect for facts, respect for truth, reliance on sound reasoning, service to the public interest, respect for the rule of law and a belief that democracy is better than authoritarianism and demagoguery.

Of those, only respect for facts come close to solid objectivity, at least in theory. In practice, what is fact and what isn't is now usually bitterly contested. But at least people claim to be fact-based, just as they claim to rely on true truths and sound reasoning. Conversely, most people claim they dislike being lied to and being deceived. That includes including deceit by flawed partisan reasoning. As discussed before, truths can be true or false in whole or in part, and political reasoning usually isn’t mostly logical.

Is moral authority inherent in fact, truth and sound reasoning?

If it is true that most people (~95% ?) believe that facts, true truths and sound reasoning are preferable to lies and partisan bogus reasoning, then one can argue that rare but near-universal belief is a source of moral authority or a good moral value. One can also think that denying or distorting facts and truths and irrational emotional manipulation is also immoral. So is applying unreasonably flawed, biased or partisan thinking. Collectively, all of those tactics constitute dark free speech.[1]

Obviously, people will disagree on what is unreasonably flawed, biased or partisan and what is not. People in political disagreements tend to dismiss opposing facts, truths and arguments as faked or unreasonably flawed, biased or partisan. In my experience, their own invariably arguments pass muster. I do not recall even one person who ever told me that they rely on fake facts, false truths or bogus reasoning. A few have come close to that. They assert that their sacred ends justify almost any means, and thus lies and deceit are acceptable tactics. However, even those people always back away and claim they themselves are fact and reason based.

In view of the foregoing, one can conclude that dark free speech is immoral, even when the end is believed to be sacred or so important that honest speech has to be sacrificed for the greater good, God’s will, racial purity or whatever the sacred end might be.

History on tyranny vs democracy

Demagogue: a political leader or a person trying to gain political power by seeking support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument; a person who relies heavily on dark free speech (DFS) to try to rise to power

People who study these things usually show variations on a rather simple repeating pattern. An aspiring demagogue (tyrant wannabe) builds a core of support among people who become ardent supporters or fanatics. The demagogue uses DFS to attract the initial group of followers. The demagogue is a relentless but talented liar and deceiver capable of painting false realities to support his agenda, which is accumulation of power and usually also wealth. Over time the demagogue weasels his way into power, sometimes when existing political parties have become spent or immoral-corrupt forces and they see the demagogue as their salvation. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power this way.

Once in power, the demagogue seeks to consolidate and accumulate more power, The most common power-accumulating tactic is heavy reliance on DFS to distract, divide and confuse society. The point is to create distrust in existing institutions, political opposition and whatever target group the demagogue chooses to scapegoat for real and imagined wrongs and evil deeds. With few or no exceptions, the demagogue is deeply authoritarian. Because of that, his mortal enemies include democracy itself, social harmony, social trust in government and social institutions that defend the rule of law. Inconvenient facts, truths and logic have no place in this and all are drowned in a proverbial bathtub overflowing with DFS. Simply put, lies and deceit swallow and kill facts and sound reasoning.

One cannot deny that societies are quite susceptible to DFS wielded by a ruthless but talented demagogue. We are witnessing this right now in America. The recent increase in the president’s public approval is driven by a false belief that he is doing an excellent job in dealing with the coronavirus. That false perception has persuasive power despite a mountain of evidence showing that the president has been utterly incompetent in dealing with the crisis right from the beginning and continuing to this very day. The president’s endless lies and deceit about his own performance is persuading some Americans to adopt a false belief in his non-existent competence and maybe even honest altruism for some.

In a democracy, the end game for demagogue tyrant wannabes amounts to destruction of the rule of law, political opposition and the free press, while dividing and polarizing society into warring tribes. Those tribes tend to see their tribe through an intolerant, irrational, moralistic and righteous lens. In that social milieu, facts and rationality are simply swept away when they are inconvenient or threatening to the tribe or its sacred beliefs. That is where America is today.[2]

This is where America is today

What about the demagogue’s rank and file supporters?

In democracies, the demagogue needs at least some public support to accumulate and maintain power. America’s demagogue president is no exception. His rise to power and his current situation today have been bolstered all along by unflinching public support by people who see him as having some combination good, competence or nationalist belief. Those people were necessary to put the president in the White House.

We are at a point where essentially no lie, corrupt act, incompetent act or incitement to hate or distrust fazes hardly any supporter. That the president is a chronic liar, corrupt, a lawbreaker, a traitor, incompetent or mentally unfit for office are things the president’s rank and file supporters just deny, ignore or downplay into insignificance. Those facts have been drowned in the tub full of DFS.

How can one apportion responsibility (blame?) for the role the president’s supporters have played in all of this? Is it even rational to try to assess responsibility and moral culpability? Few or none of the president’s supporters see essentially the reality of what their leader really is. Most (~97% ?) strongly deny that he uses DFS against the American people, the rule of law or anything else. In their minds he speaks truth and fights for what is honest and decent. They dismiss criticisms of the president as just meaningless political white noise, a pack of lies or whatever else they need to believe to make concerns about the president basically go away in their minds.

There is no way to ever reconcile the two different perceptions of exactly who and what the US president really is. His supporters have some degree of responsibility for the situation we are now in. If one believes that DFS is immoral, then one can conclude that his supporters openly support immorality or even evil, but are basically unaware of it. Does that make them immoral or even evil?

Maybe the answer to that lies at least partly in what is in their minds. Some of the president’s supporters are truly oblivious to the evidence of his immoral-evil character, or they hear it but reject it as lies or whatever. Those people have been deceived and betrayed by DFS.

On the other hand, some of the president’s supporters are aware of who and what he is and they support that. They may not be openly honest about this, but they nonetheless give their support. After all, few or no Americans would ever admit that they follow a corrupt, lying dictator wannabe because they want racial purity, American global dominance, more Christian God in government or whatever it is they want. Can those people be seen as immoral or evil to any extent?

In the law, there is a concept called strict liability. It applies to some laws such as statutory rape. Legal liability can attach when a person has sex with an underage person. That person can be legally liable even though they (1) thought the person was not underage, and (2) did not know they were breaking any law. The logic is simple: If you did the act, you broke the law and are liable. It doesn't matter what was in the perpetrator’s mind.

Is it reasonable to apply the same logic to people in a democracy, with a free press and easy access to information? Are the president’s supporters responsible for the corrupt, incompetent mess America has sunk into, regardless of what they think about the president, good, bad, confused or nothing at all? What about people who do not vote? Are they culpable in some way?  Is there a civic moral responsibility for people in a democracy like the US to not be so hopelessly deluded by a such an obviously corrupt, lying demagogue as the president is? What about supporter and non-voter culpability for a demagogue who is much more subtle about deploying DFS against a democracy and its society as he tries to bring it to its knees?

My assessment

A lot of Americans have little or no time for politics. Millions live paycheck to paycheck and are strapped for time. Millions of others who are better off do not care about politics, have no interest in it or are otherwise disengaged. At present, there isn’t even a law that punishes unexcused non-voting by eligible voters. Millions of Americans just blow elections off and live their lives as best they can. For various reasons that the president’s time in office has made clear, American democracy is largely defenseless against a demagogue-tyrant. Norms that used to restrain tyrant wannabes have fallen with the full support of the Trump Party.

Given how far and fast America has fallen, how obviously evil the president is, and how fast America is moving toward some form of kakistocratic, kleptocratic tyranny-oligarchy, people who do not oppose what is happening share some moral responsibility. Supporters of this share even more responsibility, and it amounts to some degree of immorality that varies with what is in their minds. Knowing support is more immoral than deceived support, which is more immoral than confused or uncertain support, which is more immoral than not participating at all. Opposition to evil is not immoral at all.

Obviously, this kind of analysis can get very complicated. For example, what about people who oppose DFS, but are authoritarians? Is authoritarianism, depending on how it is defined, even compatible with democracy? Is authoritarianism alone immoral? I believe authoritarianism alone is immoral or evil, depending on how brutal and/or corrupt it is. DFS alone is immoral or evil, depending on how reality and/or reason-detached it is, even if only a few people are exposed to it.


Footnotes:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

2. That is not to say that the president alone is responsible for America’s situation. For decades, American conservatism relentlessly used DFS to build false, reality-detached sacred beliefs and foment deep public distrust and disrespect for inconvenient truth, science, expertise and democratic government itself. In essence, the old GOP (a corrupt, morally bankrupt institution), now the Trump Party, worked long and hard to get us here. The demagogue Trump and his run at corrupt, authoritarian single-party rule is its crowning achievement. I am not the only person who sees the ugly reality of modern American conservatism with such cold clarity.


Aspirational: Ten Years After, I'd Love to Change the World