The Ethics of Political Neutrality

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.