| Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymity in politics |
| From: Steve Hoersting |
| Date: 12/4/2010, 7:02 AM |
| To: Paul Lehto |
| CC: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
Paul Lehto pens a thoughtful post—too thoughtful, perhaps, for the casual skimmer to get his head around. I commend him.
In his discussion, however, on the costs of anonymity, which Paul writes are increases in “anti-social” behavior, he fails to address one key
consideration. What about the "cost" in a minority
being deterred or damaged by the retribution that can flow from compelled disclosure? How much should this cost weigh?
It wasn’t until I got around to reading his sources that I understood why Paul might downplay the concern I would make central. Paul appears to be a communitarian. I am classical liberal.
Where classical liberals “construe communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, [communitarians] emphasize the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in [classical] liberal theories of justice.”
Paul, I presume, might, in most things,
agree with the writings of Justice Stephen Breyer, who has said there is little to fear from government for it is “merely us trying to solve our problems.” On this view, "us" more seems an organic whole than a collection of individuals.
Paul also cites Plato. But Plato believed individuals, you and I, can’t apprehend reality unaided. We can’t do it on our own: “The things one sees and touches are imperfect copies of the pure forms studied by philosophers.” It is this philosophy, taken to heart, that today has Paul’s beloved Michigan, fading Mecca to tradesmen and inventors, falling down around him. (The same happens in my Ohio).
Paul cites Bentham. But Bentham rejected “the dominant British natural rights tradition that went back at least to John Locke and in Bentham's own lifetime had been embodied in the United States Constitution.” To Bentham, individual rights are “Nonsense on stilts."
I can’t help wondering what MLK and his allies would have thought of Bentham’s formulation, "nonsense on stilts," or of the supposed "costs" of anonymity while spending enormous sums to fight community norms in the 1960s.
In 2007, two professors wrote that the problem with communitarian (over universalistic) norms is that “communitarian norms hurt minorities the most, and the advantages of universalism become more pronounced the more ascriptively fragmented a society is or the smaller is the minority group.”
To Paul’s Bentham, I suggest Locke. To his Plato, I suggest Aristotle. To his JFK, RWR.
Those still skimming this post—even good friends of mine—are now no doubt asking, What in the world does any of this have to with really important stuff, like Romney versus Pawlenty versus Gingrich in 2012?
The answer is: everything. (Even Gingrich now says the foremost question is what kind of government should now replace Pelosi's).
It is the question whether the United States can be a Republic or must become an Empire—an issue any kid watching Star Wars can get his head around.
And, speaking of that famous kids’ saga (and keeping with the topic of anonymity and disclosure), the second half of this Bloomberg article—on where TARP and TALP went and why—makes it fair for anyone with an understanding of events to question whether a construct akin to the saga’s rightly dreaded “Trade Federation” isn’t now being constructed on the American left).
Best,
Steve Hoersting
On 12/1/10, Jim Gardner <jgard@buffalo.edu> wrote:[snip]
> Regarding Rick's query in the item below:
> "Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases
> unethical behavior."
> My reading of theIt is not difficult at all to figure out the effect of anonymity in
> literature is that the effect of anonymity on behavior is highly contingent
> and context-dependent, meaning that sometimes it encourages antisocial
> behavior but sometimes it encourages prosocial behavior. As a result, it is
> very difficult to make a priori judgments about the impact of anonymity in
> any particular setting.
campaign finance and advertising is quite negative based on common
sense of normal observation, regardless of the alleged fact that we
can't predict the exact mix of prosocial or antisocial/unethical
behavior that is fostered by anonymity:
1. At costume parties, the lack of accountability provided by most
costumes allows acting out less socially acceptable behavior overall,
even if a few become more virtuous somehow.
2. In political advertising, One, or a few, rotten apples in the form
of negative ad campaigns spoils the whole barrel. Even if we can't
predict an exact mix of antisocial and prosocial behavior that is
enabled by anonymity, we can still safely predict the end result.
3. Similarly, on the internet, or even on this list, just a few
"trolls" or virulent posts within a thread can ruin for many a thread
of otherwise substantive content, causing people to turn away from the
"prosocial" content in the thread containing "flames" or what have
you.
4. Realizing that we speak of the level of ethics and not law per se,
Benjamin Franklin's famous saying can be applied to anonymity/secrecy:
"He'll cheat without scruple who can without fear [of being caught]."
The fields that have critiqued or rejected anonymity/secrecy is by no
means limited to the field of psychology. (the links in the NY Times
article go to literature in the area)
Just for starters, political theorists have consistently rejected
anonymity as a political value (or, in the case of Plato, shown it to
be unacceptable where it exists). Starting with the distinctly
non-democratic philosopher Plato, who showed that invisibility
(anonymity) would guarantee victory for the unjust man (any "just man"
engaging in the behavior of the unjust man below would become an
unjust man). Plato's "Ring of Gyges" can be summarized as follows in
this quote from a secondary source:
"Glaucon recounts the tale of Gyges, a shepherd in the service of the
King of Lydia, who finds a marvelous ring that confers upon the wearer
the power to become invisible and do things secretly. In short order,
Gyges uses the power of the ring to enter the palace, seduce the
Queen, kill the King and usurp the throne. Plato suggests that if a
just and unjust man were each to possess such a ring possessing powers
of unaccountability, they would both use it to commit injustices, and
that anyone who acted otherwise would be a fool." (Quotation
summarizing "The Ring of Gyges" from "This is Not a Book", p. 51)
Harry S. Truman: "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix."
John F. Kennedy, perhaps applicable to nondisclosing (c)(4) "secret societies":
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and
we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings."
Re: The Judiciary: "Without publicity, all other checks are
insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of
small account. Recordation, appeal, whatever other institutions might
present themselves in the character of checks, would be found to
operate rather as cloaks than checks; as cloaks in reality, as checks
only in appearance." Bentham also emphasized that open proceedings
enhanced the performance of all involved, protected the judge from
imputations of dishonesty, and served to educate the public. Rationale
of Judicial Evidence at 522-525.
Joseph Pulitzer: "We are a democracy, and there is only one way to get
a democracy on its feet in the matter of its individual, its social,
its municipal, its state, its national conduct, and that is by keeping
the public informed about what is going on. There is not a crime,
there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle,
there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy. Get these things
out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the
press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away . . .
publicity may not be the only thing that is needed, but it is the one
thing without which all other agencies will fail."
The core thing about secrecy in any form, whether anonymity or
otherwise, is the lack of accountability. And there definitely is a
legitimate accountability in social intercourse that acts
affirmatively to ennoble and improve the discourse. Those exposed by
Wikileaks would have spoken differently and more politely had they
known their cables would be published. Countless other examples
obtain.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> I need to make some corrections before I post the draft on SSRN, which I
> hope to do by the end of the month. But if anyone would like a copy of the
> preliminary version feel free to contact me off-list and I'd be happy to
> provide it.
>
> Jim
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law