Roosevelt began his speech with “I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.” He proceeded to do just that, refusing to minimize the problems in any way, but instead outlining for the American people exactly what the government would do to help solve the problem (in this case, creating more jobs and increased supervision of banking investments) and what they themselves could do to improve the situation for the country.
Although the situations are arguably much different today than in 1933—obviously Roosevelt would not have been able to make people think the economy was okay if he tried—, I do believe that his speech illustrates that there are honest ways for the government to deal with potentially disastrous situations, even those that involve the economy. Roosevelt’s speech quelled people fears, not by lying to them about the situation at hand, but instead by reassuring them of the government’s responsibility and their own in addressing the problem. While lying leads to eventual distrust of people in their government and simply postpones fear, blunt honesty like Roosevelt’s can give people hope and efficacy. Roosevelt was not lying when he told the people that only their own fear to spend or invest money would escalate the problem. This is absolutely true, and it provided citizens with a realistic step that they could take that could help alleviate the situation.
For my final point I’m moving in somewhat of a different direction, but I think it is important to look at when we talk about governmental lying in any type of situation. We briefly touched yesterday on the concept of paternalism, which dictionary.com defines as “the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children.” I think most people who agree in any way the concept of our government serving as trustees rather than simply delegates would agree to the necessity of paternalism to some degree in government. While we disagree on which rights these are, most acknowledge that it is acceptable for the government to limit some of our rights to protect us, as a parent would a child. However, even accepting the necessity of paternalism, I still find I can’t justify government lying. Perhaps I’ll change my mind as I read the case studies for Thursday; however, as of now, I feel that, while lying is perhaps not inherently evil in all situations, it is inherently unhealthy for relationships, including both parent-child relationships and government-citizen relationships. The long-term negative consequences of governmental lying—that is, a people’s distrust of its government—outweighs, I believe, any short-term benefits.
Splendid post, Meaghan. I've always thought that one of the things that made FDR so popular was his constant contact and propensity for honesty with the American people. I often wonder why the idea of the inevitability of lying in politics is so pervasive. While I fully understand that some situations are incredibly delicate, likely to be misunderstood by the public or could cause panic, I think a government with true moral authority could handle all of these things in a truthful way that built the people's confidence instead of keeping them in fear, mistrust and uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteA large part of the government's activities are uncovered by the media within a matter of months or years, therefore their actions will come to light eventually no matter how secret they try to keep them. When the actions come to light, there will inevitably be conjecture and disapproval by some segment of the population no matter what the action is. Therefore, the government is deceiving itself if it thinks any amount of deception can spare it from the sometimes-unfair glare of the scrutinizing populace. There will always be the danger of a misunderstanding populace or panic at new information. You cannot get rid of it. But if your actions are moral I think it is likely that most people will agree with them; if your actions are not justifiable the opposite will be true.
I took American Government last semester and I know a billion studies have been done on voter behavior, public opinion and the media's representation of the news. But I often think all these studies that put people in a test tube and scrutinize them like a huge, deterministic chemical equation only perpetuate the tragedy that is American politics. That is, people are assumed to be stupid, herd-like and completely impulsive. It is precisely this kind of reasoning that makes politicians feel justified when they lie--they believe their judgment, mental clarity and wisdom are above the people's. But I know a lot of people, and those three adjectives (stupid, herd-like and completely impulsive) combine in very few of them. If everyone was this way, how could anyone truly believe in universal suffrage or democracy? How could you let people who fit such a description vote at all? Politicians and statisticians and political scientists should give the common person a bit of credit. Maybe we could all prove that we're reasonable, good human beings if those who hold and disseminate information would just give us a chance.