Benjamin Boak Research Paper
The Reticent Politician
The word “reticence” is not a common word to hear in everyday life. The word “politician” while more commonly used, has received a bad reputation, at least in the United States, because it has been associated with power-hungry, manipulative public officials who value the progress of their agenda over their own integrity. Public officials, from Presidents to mayors, have been caught lying to the public within the U.S. liberal democracy, have tainted their own reputations, and have lost trust from the people they were elected to serve. By entering into a position of service to over 300 million people in the United States, political officials, especially those who serve at the federal level, should be held to a higher …show more content…
standard of accountability—one that recognizes the weight of the role and the consequences of every decision they make as an elected official. “Reticent,” when used as an adjective, according to the dictionary definition, means, “reserved” or, “not saying all that one knows.” This definition differentiates lying and refusing to give information. In this essay, the aim will be to reconcile these two words and show how politicians in a liberal democracy can regain trust with the public by first committing to both honesty and reticence.
First, I will outline the main arguments within Sissela Bok’s book, “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” and briefly explain how they are persuasive. Then, I will discuss how this book provides a useful framework for assessing the case studies involving President John F. Kennedy and Mayor John Lindsay, and justify how these cases lend support for the view that it is always impermissible for elected officials in a liberal democracy to lie to the public.
Bok frames her book around two central questions: …”whether to lie or to speak honestly, and about what to say and what to hold back” (Bok, 4). She then defines these to guide our daily interactions in the public and private spheres of life. Bok gives reasons commonly held for lying in the public and private spheres. Bok explains that the “Whole truth” is virtually unattainable in today’s society and gives contextual evidence and examples that explain why this is so. Bok’s practical approach to philosophic questions regarding ethical dilemmas is what makes this book so beneficial to us today. Since most philosophers address issues that are too abstract for practical application to the problems and questions we face on a daily basis, philosophers have become regarded as obsolete to many people. Defying this, Bok begins her book by using her philosophic curiosity to ask “How can a physician tell the whole truth to a patient about a set of symptoms and their causes and likely effects?” (4). Here, Bok shows that philosophic inquiry can and in fact, should, be applied to practical and particular cases that affect society.
In her opening statements, Bok argues that one must first “…single out… that which is done with the intention to mislead,” before answering the moral question. Bok presents her intention to “…define deception and lying and then analyze the moral dilemma it raises,” instead of becoming distracted by the fact that the whole truth can never be reached (13). Bok defines her view of a lie as “an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement” (15). In this definition, Bok separates what she calls the “clear-cut lies—where the intention to mislead is obvious …” from “filters (the complexities of disparate circumstances),” which can impede our ability to make sharp distinctions about what affect such lies have on our choices and perception and when they might be justified (16). Bok’s focus on concrete cases where the lie is extremely clear gives public officials a helpful framework for identifying where they may have a weak spot in their own ethical views on lying. When public officials have clarity in this area, they are more equipped to refuse comment on certain subjects that may end up caching them in a lie.
Bok continues to discuss the power that lies have in the public sphere, providing a useful framework for assessing the actual cases of John F.
Kennedy and Mayor John Lindsay, to support the belief that it is never morally permissible for elected officials in a liberal democracy to lie to the public. Bok says that the sum of our choices depend on the estimates we must conclude based on information gained from others. When we are unaware that the information given to us is false, our choices and the situation as we perceive it, are distorted. Furthermore, Bok explains that if we agree that knowledge gives power, then, to this extent, lies affect the distribution of power; “they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived” (19). This supports the idea that in a democracy, it is possible and likely, for an elected public official to gain political power as a result of lying to the public. In a liberal democracy, the purpose of elected government officials is to serve on behalf of the public who voted them into office. False statements to the public undermine the purpose of a liberal …show more content…
democracy.
Continuing in the Bok-style of specificity, we will use the 1969 case of Mayor John Lindsay to prove this point.
In the case, we gather evidence from a case study called “Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments” by the Nelson Hall Series in Politics and Economics, in a particular case by Graham T. Allison and Lance E. Liebman, titled “Lying in Office.” The authors note that on the Sunday prior to election day, in a TV debate, Mario Procaccino, a conservative democrat who is running against the current mayor, John Lindsay, challenges the mayor in the accusation that he has been made aware of a secret report on housing in New York City. Procaccino claims that this report states that the rent control is the foundational housing problem in the city and recommends revisions that will increase rents on a mass-scale. Procaccino also claims that Liebman is aware that the report will be suppressed until after the election (41). Mayor Lindsay knows of such a report and has seen enough of it to know that the plans will lead to rent increases, and that the report will not be published until after the election. The case study tells us that Lindsay secretly supported the adoption of the report and then denied its existence and his approval of it to the public, twice. He promised to reject any such bill that may come before him as reelected Mayor. The case says that he does not want to lose votes or trust from the public because they disagree with his support for the bill, or his knowledge
it. In a remark on a similarly deceptive political case, Bok states: “President Johnson thus denied the electorate any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history” (172).
Bok continues to argue that this type of deception, as we also see in the case of Mayor John Lindsay, “allows those in power to override or nullify the right vested in the people to cast an informed vote in critical elections” (172). Here, the framework is clear. Lying to the public, as an elected public official in a liberal democracy, is always impermissible because it goes against what Bok calls the “most basic principle of our political system” (173). Bok states the counter-argument; wherein the mayor believes it is in the best interest of the public that he gets reelected. He believes that “the lie concerns questions which he believes the voters are unable to evaluate properly, especially on such short notice” (174). Here, the mayor is doing what he believes is best for the public, however, this is a problem because by granting himself the right to lie, Bok argues he is taking away power from the public that they would not have voluntarily given him (175). Bok presents the idea of deception, within the framework of public office, as a slippery slope in which lies are told to cover up what elected officials believe the public thinks is unsightly, therefore blurring the lines of what is necessary for the public good to know and what is right for them to know.
In a similar case study within the same series, Allison and Liebman outline the October 1962 case of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy had received a letter from the Soviet Union stating that it will dismantle and remove its nuclear missiles from Cuba if the U.S. agrees to do the same in Turkey. Kennedy knows that agreeing to this will jeopardize European security, which the U.S. had promised to aid. He instead, chooses to ignore the letter and instead, replies to an earlier letter he received from Premier Khrushchev, personally, in which Khrushchev offered to withdraw missiles from Cuba on the agreement that the U.S. promises to not invade. Kennedy agrees to the proposal and tells his brother, Robert to send word to the Soviet Ambassador that he has already ordered the removal of American missiles in Turkey and would ensure that the order is carried out quickly. Later, in a press conference following the crises and congressional elections, Kennedy denied any kind of agreement or discussion about anything other than that pertaining to Cuba. This denial of which there is clear, evidentiary support, is another example of the kind of deception Bok disagrees with. While deception is never permissible, it is important, and perhaps obvious, to understand the gravity of the positions that our public officials hold. While positions of this rank, especially those whose job description requires leadership over matters of foreign affairs and dealing with mass-scale decisions involving multi-faceted factors, are high-demand and high-risk, it is still possible to withhold information from enemies or from the public and remain effective.
It is not easy to make judgments on how to tell the truth and still maintain the safety and benefit of the public you have been appointed to serve. Bok gives a useful framework for this very attitude when she states that “it is far better to refuse comment than to lie in such situations. The objection may be made, however, that a refusal to comment will be interpreted by the press as tantamount to an admission that devaluation or higher taxes are very near” (178). In response to this objection, Bok argues that it is helpful to establish credibility in the beginning of one’s time in public office by stating clearly what will and will not be addressed to the public, therefore setting a precedent for accountability and transparency that will prevent distrust from developing. Bok recognizes that at times, taking this precaution may not be possible, especially in a political role, where one must make decisions based off complicated and multifaceted factors. Secrecy is a useful, and at many times necessary tool for public officials to use. Secrecy, however, is not the same as lying to the public. The principle nature of reticence maintains that sensitive information can, and at most times should be kept confidential. At the same time, lying to the public can be avoided if the public official clearly defines what key issues he will and will not discuss to the public, prior to, or at the beginning of his term. Bok offers: “—but the right to withhold information is not the right to lie about it” (176).
Elected officials have the potential to be more effective at their jobs if they acquire the skill of discerning when it is appropriate to say nothing and when it is appropriate to disclose information. This can be done without deceit and can both gain the public’s trust and raise morale. The ending of Bok’s book gives a concrete way to begin reshaping cultural understanding of lying. Bok emphasizes the importance of education, at all levels, in teaching students to think about why we often think lying is worse when planned than when lying on the spur of the moment (248). By laying a foundation for “respect for veracity,” Bok says that it is still possible to regain trust and integrity within the government, medical fields, and other sectors of private and public life. These types of revisions within a liberal democracy have the potential to infiltrate every aspect of private and public life through a trickle-down effect of morality. Just as morality can erode within a society over time when the lines between right and wrong become blurred, morality can improve over time by upholding clear and high standards of ethics at the highest levels of government and education. This creates a top-down strategy that can build momentum for the liberal democracy to function more effectively as a whole.
Works Cited
Allison, Graham T., and Lance M. Liebman. "Lying in Office." Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments. By Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1984. 40-42. Print.
Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Pantheon,
1978. Print.
The word “reticence” is not a common word to hear in everyday life. The word “politician” while more commonly used, has received a bad reputation, at least in the United States, because it has been associated with power-hungry, manipulative public officials who value the progress of their agenda over their own integrity. Public officials, from Presidents to mayors, have been caught lying to the public within the U.S. liberal democracy, have tainted their own reputations, and have lost trust from the people they were elected to serve. By entering into a position of service to over 300 million people in the United States, political officials, especially those who serve at the federal level, should be held to a higher …show more content…
standard of accountability—one that recognizes the weight of the role and the consequences of every decision they make as an elected official. “Reticent,” when used as an adjective, according to the dictionary definition, means, “reserved” or, “not saying all that one knows.” This definition differentiates lying and refusing to give information. In this essay, the aim will be to reconcile these two words and show how politicians in a liberal democracy can regain trust with the public by first committing to both honesty and reticence.
First, I will outline the main arguments within Sissela Bok’s book, “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” and briefly explain how they are persuasive. Then, I will discuss how this book provides a useful framework for assessing the case studies involving President John F. Kennedy and Mayor John Lindsay, and justify how these cases lend support for the view that it is always impermissible for elected officials in a liberal democracy to lie to the public.
Bok frames her book around two central questions: …”whether to lie or to speak honestly, and about what to say and what to hold back” (Bok, 4). She then defines these to guide our daily interactions in the public and private spheres of life. Bok gives reasons commonly held for lying in the public and private spheres. Bok explains that the “Whole truth” is virtually unattainable in today’s society and gives contextual evidence and examples that explain why this is so. Bok’s practical approach to philosophic questions regarding ethical dilemmas is what makes this book so beneficial to us today. Since most philosophers address issues that are too abstract for practical application to the problems and questions we face on a daily basis, philosophers have become regarded as obsolete to many people. Defying this, Bok begins her book by using her philosophic curiosity to ask “How can a physician tell the whole truth to a patient about a set of symptoms and their causes and likely effects?” (4). Here, Bok shows that philosophic inquiry can and in fact, should, be applied to practical and particular cases that affect society.
In her opening statements, Bok argues that one must first “…single out… that which is done with the intention to mislead,” before answering the moral question. Bok presents her intention to “…define deception and lying and then analyze the moral dilemma it raises,” instead of becoming distracted by the fact that the whole truth can never be reached (13). Bok defines her view of a lie as “an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement” (15). In this definition, Bok separates what she calls the “clear-cut lies—where the intention to mislead is obvious …” from “filters (the complexities of disparate circumstances),” which can impede our ability to make sharp distinctions about what affect such lies have on our choices and perception and when they might be justified (16). Bok’s focus on concrete cases where the lie is extremely clear gives public officials a helpful framework for identifying where they may have a weak spot in their own ethical views on lying. When public officials have clarity in this area, they are more equipped to refuse comment on certain subjects that may end up caching them in a lie.
Bok continues to discuss the power that lies have in the public sphere, providing a useful framework for assessing the actual cases of John F.
Kennedy and Mayor John Lindsay, to support the belief that it is never morally permissible for elected officials in a liberal democracy to lie to the public. Bok says that the sum of our choices depend on the estimates we must conclude based on information gained from others. When we are unaware that the information given to us is false, our choices and the situation as we perceive it, are distorted. Furthermore, Bok explains that if we agree that knowledge gives power, then, to this extent, lies affect the distribution of power; “they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived” (19). This supports the idea that in a democracy, it is possible and likely, for an elected public official to gain political power as a result of lying to the public. In a liberal democracy, the purpose of elected government officials is to serve on behalf of the public who voted them into office. False statements to the public undermine the purpose of a liberal …show more content…
democracy.
Continuing in the Bok-style of specificity, we will use the 1969 case of Mayor John Lindsay to prove this point.
In the case, we gather evidence from a case study called “Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments” by the Nelson Hall Series in Politics and Economics, in a particular case by Graham T. Allison and Lance E. Liebman, titled “Lying in Office.” The authors note that on the Sunday prior to election day, in a TV debate, Mario Procaccino, a conservative democrat who is running against the current mayor, John Lindsay, challenges the mayor in the accusation that he has been made aware of a secret report on housing in New York City. Procaccino claims that this report states that the rent control is the foundational housing problem in the city and recommends revisions that will increase rents on a mass-scale. Procaccino also claims that Liebman is aware that the report will be suppressed until after the election (41). Mayor Lindsay knows of such a report and has seen enough of it to know that the plans will lead to rent increases, and that the report will not be published until after the election. The case study tells us that Lindsay secretly supported the adoption of the report and then denied its existence and his approval of it to the public, twice. He promised to reject any such bill that may come before him as reelected Mayor. The case says that he does not want to lose votes or trust from the public because they disagree with his support for the bill, or his knowledge
it. In a remark on a similarly deceptive political case, Bok states: “President Johnson thus denied the electorate any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history” (172).
Bok continues to argue that this type of deception, as we also see in the case of Mayor John Lindsay, “allows those in power to override or nullify the right vested in the people to cast an informed vote in critical elections” (172). Here, the framework is clear. Lying to the public, as an elected public official in a liberal democracy, is always impermissible because it goes against what Bok calls the “most basic principle of our political system” (173). Bok states the counter-argument; wherein the mayor believes it is in the best interest of the public that he gets reelected. He believes that “the lie concerns questions which he believes the voters are unable to evaluate properly, especially on such short notice” (174). Here, the mayor is doing what he believes is best for the public, however, this is a problem because by granting himself the right to lie, Bok argues he is taking away power from the public that they would not have voluntarily given him (175). Bok presents the idea of deception, within the framework of public office, as a slippery slope in which lies are told to cover up what elected officials believe the public thinks is unsightly, therefore blurring the lines of what is necessary for the public good to know and what is right for them to know.
In a similar case study within the same series, Allison and Liebman outline the October 1962 case of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy had received a letter from the Soviet Union stating that it will dismantle and remove its nuclear missiles from Cuba if the U.S. agrees to do the same in Turkey. Kennedy knows that agreeing to this will jeopardize European security, which the U.S. had promised to aid. He instead, chooses to ignore the letter and instead, replies to an earlier letter he received from Premier Khrushchev, personally, in which Khrushchev offered to withdraw missiles from Cuba on the agreement that the U.S. promises to not invade. Kennedy agrees to the proposal and tells his brother, Robert to send word to the Soviet Ambassador that he has already ordered the removal of American missiles in Turkey and would ensure that the order is carried out quickly. Later, in a press conference following the crises and congressional elections, Kennedy denied any kind of agreement or discussion about anything other than that pertaining to Cuba. This denial of which there is clear, evidentiary support, is another example of the kind of deception Bok disagrees with. While deception is never permissible, it is important, and perhaps obvious, to understand the gravity of the positions that our public officials hold. While positions of this rank, especially those whose job description requires leadership over matters of foreign affairs and dealing with mass-scale decisions involving multi-faceted factors, are high-demand and high-risk, it is still possible to withhold information from enemies or from the public and remain effective.
It is not easy to make judgments on how to tell the truth and still maintain the safety and benefit of the public you have been appointed to serve. Bok gives a useful framework for this very attitude when she states that “it is far better to refuse comment than to lie in such situations. The objection may be made, however, that a refusal to comment will be interpreted by the press as tantamount to an admission that devaluation or higher taxes are very near” (178). In response to this objection, Bok argues that it is helpful to establish credibility in the beginning of one’s time in public office by stating clearly what will and will not be addressed to the public, therefore setting a precedent for accountability and transparency that will prevent distrust from developing. Bok recognizes that at times, taking this precaution may not be possible, especially in a political role, where one must make decisions based off complicated and multifaceted factors. Secrecy is a useful, and at many times necessary tool for public officials to use. Secrecy, however, is not the same as lying to the public. The principle nature of reticence maintains that sensitive information can, and at most times should be kept confidential. At the same time, lying to the public can be avoided if the public official clearly defines what key issues he will and will not discuss to the public, prior to, or at the beginning of his term. Bok offers: “—but the right to withhold information is not the right to lie about it” (176).
Elected officials have the potential to be more effective at their jobs if they acquire the skill of discerning when it is appropriate to say nothing and when it is appropriate to disclose information. This can be done without deceit and can both gain the public’s trust and raise morale. The ending of Bok’s book gives a concrete way to begin reshaping cultural understanding of lying. Bok emphasizes the importance of education, at all levels, in teaching students to think about why we often think lying is worse when planned than when lying on the spur of the moment (248). By laying a foundation for “respect for veracity,” Bok says that it is still possible to regain trust and integrity within the government, medical fields, and other sectors of private and public life. These types of revisions within a liberal democracy have the potential to infiltrate every aspect of private and public life through a trickle-down effect of morality. Just as morality can erode within a society over time when the lines between right and wrong become blurred, morality can improve over time by upholding clear and high standards of ethics at the highest levels of government and education. This creates a top-down strategy that can build momentum for the liberal democracy to function more effectively as a whole.
Works Cited
Allison, Graham T., and Lance M. Liebman. "Lying in Office." Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments. By Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1984. 40-42. Print.
Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Pantheon,
1978. Print.