Context
Demagoguery with its deceit of the public by authoritarian, anti-democratic people and groups is a major weakness of democracy. Arguably its greatest weakness. Lying is one of the many forms of deceit that is inherent in demagoguery. Demagoguery and deception operate as internal anti-democratic threats. Authoritarian leaders exploit popular discontent and genuine grievances using divisive rhetoric and false promises to wear democracy down while they consolidate power. Misinformation and emotional manipulation undermine institutional safeguards of liberal democracy.
Hannah Arendt, and expert on authoritarianism, argued that systematic political lying doesn't just deceive. It destroys citizens' capacity to distinguish reality from fiction, making collective deliberation impossible. She demonstrates how governments use "defactualization" to make facts appear as opinions, thereby eliminating the common ground necessary for democratic governance.
The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods or simply allowed to fall into oblivion. -- Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, 1972
Lying and deceit in democracy
The book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (1999), was written by moral philosopher Sissela Bok. Her core argument assessing lying and deceit in a democracy is simple -- there is a strong presumption that lies and deceit are immoral and rarely justifiable:
“When political representatives or entire governments arrogate to themselves the right to lie, they take power from the public that would not have been given up voluntarily. .... But such cases [that justify lying] are so rare that they hardly exist for practical purposes. .... The consequences of spreading deception, alienation and lack of trust could not have been documented for us more concretely than they have in the past decades. .... Those in government and other positions of trust should be held to the highest standards. Their lies are not ennobled by their positions; quite the contrary. .... only those deceptive practices which can be openly debated and consented to in advance are justifiable in a democracy. .... To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels***. .... Lies foster the belief that there are more alternatives than is really the case; at other times, a lie may lead to the unnecessary loss of confidence in the best alternative.”***
Three points worth highlighting:
Lying and deceit takes from those deceived their power to think and act on the basis of truth. When people try to deceive others intentionally, they convey messages meant to mislead the listeners. Deceitful messages can be conveyed by a range of things including gestures, rhetoric, inaction, or even silence.
Taking power from people to think and act on the basis of truth is inherently immoral and anti-democratic.
Lying and deceit are intentional and knowing. The landscape there is generally immoral. However, honest mistakes can often be assessed to as morally neutral or positive.
Bok argues identifies and discusses major effects of deceit and lying, some of which are obvious, but some not. Lies and deceit tend to lead to loss of trust in fellow citizens, government and social institutions. They tear at the fabric of society. When wielded by demagogues, lies and deceit are often dehumanizing. Demagogic dehumanization treats people as means the deceiver's ends. In those situations, people are not treated as respected ends in themselves. Dehumanization also tends to foment social discord, unwarranted polarization and unwarranted distrust. None of that is helpful for a democracy, but all of it is useful for authoritarians trying to gain or maintain power.
Bok points out an old argument that lies and deceit are immoral. The thought dates back centuries, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, ~4th century CE. The concern is that immorality begets more immorality. And, it can be contagious. Modern social science research indicated that lying leads many liars to lie more frequently and easily.
Regarding absolute free speech
In recent years, America's radical right authoritarian movement has bitterly criticized the banning of speech that asserts dishonest speech that contains some non-trivial level of lies, slanders, deceit or crackpot conspiracy theories. A bitter battle over such censorship played out with social media platforms. The war is over and the anti-censors won. The result has been that major platforms, e.g., Facebook, have backed away from moderating dishonest or dark free speech. The result is a degradation of civility and honest speech on those platforms. Social media has become significantly toxic with divisive, dishonest speech.
It is true that most of dishonest political speech is constitutionally protected free speech. One argument against moderating toxic political content is that the marketplace of ideas will sort fact from fiction. Research indicates that is false. Two scholars commented on the idea, pointing out that speech is an exercise of power:
“.... we should stop thinking that the ‘marketplace of ideas’ can effectively sort fact from fiction. .... Unfortunately, this marketplace is a fiction, and a dangerous one. We do not want to limit free speech, but we do want to strongly advocate that those in positions of power or influence see their speech for what it is -- an exercise of power capable of doing real harm. It is irresponsible to advocate for unsupported views, and doing so needs to be thought of as a moral wrong, not just a harmless addition to some kind of ideal ‘marketplace.’” -- The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall (U. Cal. Irvine), 2019
Discussion
Is it immoral for people in power to not take reasonable care to insure their rhetoric is reasonably supported by facts and sound reasoning? For politics, is it persuasive or even rational to argue that since all politicians lie, it is OK for my politicians to lie, i.e., do two wrongs make a right (or is that not the right analytic frame)?
No comments:
Post a Comment