Dishonesty by Design is Deeply Uncivil

Michael Bloomberg’s May 2018 commencement address diagnoses our top conflict today to be “an epidemic of dishonesty.” Bloomberg points to extreme partisanship, the tendency among all of us to see only the dishonesty on the other side, to favor our tribe over a shared search for the truth. Here is an AP story on his speech.

“There is more tolerance for dishonesty in politics than I have seen in my lifetime. The only thing more dangerous than dishonest politicians who have no respect for the law is a chorus of enablers who defend their every lie.”

Before anyone reading this immediately reads this as a critique of the current president and his many enablers, pause and recognize that a reader from another tribe is just as likely to read this as a critique of President Clinton and his army of enablers.

That is Bloomberg’s point.

His point is not that each side is equally responsible. He is not arguing that the current administration efforts do not amplify the problem. But he is arguing that we cannot honestly make the current president our vessel for all things dishonest, just as those frustrated with this trend on the other side cannot honestly defend the claim that this is largely about the Clintons.

Nor do we want to take Bloomberg’s assertions about tolerance for dishonesty and enablers and tumble down the unproductive pathway toward blaming voters. And please do not seek refuge in assertions about how ‘the media’ or ‘the internet’ or ‘millennials’ or ‘secularism’ or ‘violent video games’ are the driving force here.

Just like defeating the world’s superpower (British Empire) and establishing a democracy based on separated powers with checks and balances was, at that time, a daunting and complex challenge… So, are the challenges today, including this one. Seeking refuge in our favorite hobbyhorse explanation for everything we do not like is not analysis, no matter how elegant our well-rehearsed sound bites ring in our own ears.

Here is the question, related to Bloomberg’s argument, I would like to crowd source today.

Many of those involved in the ‘civility’ response to hyper-partisanship today are reluctant to include in their definition of civility that need to speak truthfully and to share with our adversaries the objective of seeking to speak as truthfully as we are able which is what makes listening so critically important.

How do we persuade these good-hearted people that speaking truthfully, seeking and respecting the best available data, ought to be a foundational cornerstone for any civility effort, particularly one designed to strengthen democratic decision making?

In my view, we must agree that lying and misleading, particularly by design and repeatedly even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is an unforgivable sin in a democratic society. Leaders who make this a habit of the heart undermine the already difficult challenge of making democracy both possible and desirable. We must agree that lying and misleading designed to put tribe before truth and community is deeply, inescapably, uncivil.

Can anyone help me ground this claim in our historical treatment of civility?

While including this in our concept of civility makes the conversation about civility more complex, perhaps even more partisan, can anyone help me make the case for inclusion anyway? Make the case that it can be done and, while more challenging, it will be worth the struggle.

Can anyone help me make the case that, while this more robust understanding of civility might sound partisan (and many will deploy these tools in partisan ways), this is not a partisan idea. This is about democracy and freedom and community…and the vigorous contestation of ideas necessary for the effective problem solving our families and communities need to live freely in a prosperous and just democratic society.

Just before turning to praise the service of John McCain, a leader on the other team, Bloomberg noted we all need to "have the courage to say the things that our own side don't want to hear." 

Bloomberg concludes with the Declaration of Independence:

The Declaration starts with this famous claim:

We hold these truths to be self-evident…

Bloomberg argues our founding generation was only able to bring these truths to light because of the Declaration’s final words…

We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.