The Ethics of Political Neutrality
Many, if not
most of the jobs I applied to while looking for work from late 2016 to early
2018 would have had restrictions to what I can say politically in public. The
International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) has its rules of ethics that
include refraining from partisanship, and plenty of other public sector
positions have similar rules or guidelines. When I was in the Peace Corps we
were asked not to go into politics whether American or that of the country we
served in.
Currently I
have no such boundaries, but I think it’s worth exploring them regardless. This
blog post will be about why it does serve us as a society for some roles, some
organizations to remain politically neutral, and then move onto what I see as
an increasing difficulty to be so.
Reconciling
Political Neutrality with Freedom of Speech
Freedom of
speech seems to be a very misunderstood right in America. Its origins can be
found pre-Revolution, when speaking out against the King was a criminal act. Somehow between then and now many of us
developed this idea that freedom of speech includes social and professional
consequences as well, as if freedom means to be respected and taken seriously
regardless of what we say, do, or think.
It doesn’t.
Freedom of speech covers our right to express ourselves peacefully without
being thrown in jail, fined, or some other action that robs us of our freedom
in a much more literal sense.
Still, even
if the First Amendment doesn’t protect a City Manager, Federal employee, or
Peace Corps Volunteer from saying how much they think X controversial issue
should be handled one way or another, there is still the spirit of the law. There is still the want for people to
engage in political discourse to celebrate
and strengthen our
democracy. However, if democracy is a recipe, then it takes several ingredients
to make it work. Whether we want to call it a pizza, salad, stew, or
gluten-free-all-natural-free-range-non-GMO-whatever, it usually takes a few essential parts to make it work. Yes, we do need
people to raise their voice. We need people enabled to be activists, to
protest, to go to a Town Hall meeting. We also need people in a position of trust regardless of political leanings.
A Matter of
Trust
Even in the
best of times, in times when politics are less toxic and divisive, there is
still some toxicity and divisiveness to it. Politics is the art of getting our
way, and inevitably some people won’t get their way,
often on matters that are important to us. When that happens, when citizens are
let down, feel wronged, think the country is going in the wrong direction, it’s
necessary that there is still some level of trust in the system. People can
think the Electoral Count is wrong, but still need to be able to trust that the
system however flawed was implemented correctly. One side or another can think
the majority was wrong, were “sheep” or “tricked” into voting wrong, but still
need to trust that the majority cast their votes as our government says we did.
This trust
that at least our democracy doesn’t outright lie or make things up is dependent on those people who are in
positions that could abuse it. We need the County Clerk to have all votes
counted, bureaucrats to interpret and implement the laws fairly, a judge to
weigh a case on its own merits without bias. We also need to believe they are doing so, as we cannot be a fly on
every wall to verify one way or another. When people in such positions fail to do so, or are perceived to do so, our democracy is eroded.
Even in the
best of times having someone publicly be pro-legalization or anti-legalization
of Marijuana, who happens to be in charge of counting the votes will create
doubts. We do not live in the best of times, and as mistrust or irreconcilable partisanship
grips the country, it’s more important than ever for some of our professionals,
some of our leaders to sacrifice
speaking about politics publicly.
However, it’s
becoming harder.
Some of the
Challenges
Neutrality
is relative, what
one person believes deep down to be fair and objective may be radical and
emotional to another’s perspective. As the country becomes more politically
divided, as the Left moves more left and the Right move more right, so too does
each group drag their definition of neutral towards themselves, and put
mediators in a position where they’ll be seen as too conservative, too liberal,
or even both at the same time.
Many of the
institutions we once held up are now questioned and
dismissed at every turn. Although no institution should be held so
sacred that it’s beyond criticism, it’s impossible for a journalist, scientist,
academic, or religious figure to be viewed as neutral if large groups of the
public have predetermined
them to be biased.
Though the
bureaucracy is meant to be political neutral, there is an increasing gap
between one party that wants to reinforce and
increase their mission and one that questions their existence. It is not impossible to
overcome and remain neutral, but neither is it easy.
When what
once was held as unbiasedly all right
to say is now considered political propaganda,
such as condemning white supremacists, more people in positions of neutrality
are forced to either stomach and quietly accept what we didn’t have to before
or still speak out and lose the faith of some of the public.
Sometimes
there is no neutral
position, that even silence is its own
answer.
Sometimes we
as flawed human beings make mistakes,
or make the conscious and deliberate
choice that neutrality is no longer the option we can personally
take.
The Numbers
Don’t Add Up
The numbers
don’t add up to an easy solution. Hate groups are more active than they’ve been
in a long time, conspiracy theories and propagated by our leaders, the lines we
draw in the sands are deeper than before. Although we need some individuals to
remain neutral in public, I expect many will not for some time until other
issues in our society are remedied.
I see it as
another symptom of a very serious illness in America. It’s one that I would’ve
been thrust into, to do my best to be neutral in spite of the challenges, but
since I don’t have to will try to make the most of speaking out.
***
ACTION!
Define what
you personally see as politically neutral. Is it staying quiet? Is it not
taking certain actions? Is it some stance right in the middle of Democrats or
Republicans or has one party become so extreme in your eyes that even the
middle of the road is unacceptable? If you were in a position that asked you to
be silent publicly, would you? What would cause you to falter?
***
What’s Next?
There’s a
few things on my mind of late that I want to write about. One is my case for
bureaucrats, how perhaps we need bureaucrats to do well as a society and that
they are not just stuffy, red-tape-making pains-in-the-butt. I’m also thinking
about some of the socioeconomic and cultural considerations of dating a Filipina.
Finally, I’m likely going to write about what I see as the philosophical knot that
modern conservatism has tied itself into, though might wait to see if the
Primaries prove me wrong first.
