Thesis Statement
The sharp decrease in personal relationships, defined as “cordial friendship,” among the governing class in Washington, D.C. plays a significant role in the decline in ethical communication among elected and other governmental officials.
Introduction
Cordial friendship, for the purposes of this analysis, is a relationship that is not necessarily close, but nonetheless sincerely gracious and generally warm. Individuals in a cordial friendship enjoy the company of their cohort and seek out that individual at professional and social settings as well on a one-on-one basis. In simple terms, individuals that are in a cordial friendship “enjoy each other’s company.” (Spencer, 2006)
Cordial friendship contemplates something beyond civility, although civility as defined and contemplated by communications and behavioral theorists is a part of this type of relationship. Those in a cordial friendship conduct themselves civilly in relationship to one another and a relationship exists between them. Civility can (and should) exist beyond the confines of a relationship. (Forni, 2002)
Background
Over the course of the past 30-plus years, there has been a growing professional and personal disconnect among elected officials in Washington, D.C. A similar personal disconnect is also evident among the staffs of elected officials in the nation’s capital. In the 1980s, not only did these officials in the same political party develop personal relationships (cordial friendships) and socialize outside of the workplace, these types of connections reached across party lines as well. As a consequence, the commitment to ethical communication transcended professional associations and included a personal component that existed because of these cordial friendships. Indeed, ethical communication between these various officials arguably was more a result of these personal connections than any perceived set of professional norms. (Matthews, 2013)
In the 1980s, public officials did not necessarily forge close friendships but rather truly cordial ones. The relationship between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, Jr., epitomized this type of cordial friendship that permitted the commitment to ethical communication in the political arena. This cordial friendship concept is perhaps best explained by the son of the former speaker, former Massachusetts Lt. Governor Tip O’Neill, III.
“No, my father (Speaker O’Neill) and President Reagan weren’t close friends. (But), famously, after 6 p.m. on quite a few work days, they would sit down for drinks at the White House. President Reagan knew my father treasured Boston College, so he was the centerpiece of a dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel that raised $1 million to build the O’Neill Library there. When Reagan was shot at that same hotel, my father went to his hospital room to pray by his bed.” (O’Neill, 2012)
By the turn of the century, friendships and consistent socializing between officials of different parties became ever more infrequent. Indeed, by the 2014 election cycle, intra-party personal relationships (cordial friendships) and socialization became far less commonplace than was the case in the 1980s.
Cordial friendships between public officials are so rare at this juncture in time that when President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner finally connected socially, for a round of golf on June 18, 2011, the “event” made international headlines. (Katrandjian, 2011). This get-together is the closest the current President and House Speaker have had to the drinks-after-work at the White House that occurred scores of times between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Obama and Boehner have not come together again informally and socially since their four hour golf date.
My Personal Ethical Approach to Ethical Political Communication in
a Cordial Friendship Context
I consider myself fortunate to have become involved initially in politics on a national level in Washington, D.C, during a period of time in which cordial friendships and associated ethical political communication thrived. I reference the historical period of the early 1980s. My own career trajectory during that time period exemplifies how strong the cordial friendship phenomenon was during that time period.
My first position of employment in D.C. was for a firm heavily involved in energy related legislation that was founded by, headed up by and staffed nearly exclusively with Democrats. The senior partner of DiSalle and Staudinger was the former Democrat governor of Ohio who seconded the nomination of John Kennedy as that party’s candidate for President at the 1960 convention. As I recollect, I was the sole Republican at the firm (and a low ranking staffer too boot). The Democratic firm primarily represented the interest of Louisiana-based oil and gas companies. As an aside, in 2014 I cannot imagine the existence of a firm owned and staffed by Democrats that represented Louisiana oil and gas interests. The divide in D.C. is so profound that it extends to the manner in which special interests are represented and by whom.
I seamlessly moved from my position with the Democrat lobbying and public interest firm to work on the White House Staff in the Office of Media Relations for Republican President Reagan. The fact that I was coming from a position at a Democrat firm was not an issue in the interview process nor when I joined White House staff. In this day and age, this type of transition would be unthinkable in most cases
During this time period in the early 1980s, I developed a large number of cordial relationships with public servants from both major political parties. In addition, I also developed more significant personal friendships during this time period as well. In the case of cordial relationships and personal friendships, these relationships developed with no regard to political party or positions issues.
We had lively debates – but we had these jousts while having drinks or dinner after long days at work. Rarely did an evening go by that we did not gather at one or another of the popular bistros or watering holes in Georgetown or elsewhere in D.C. On weekends, we would take day trips together and engage in other types of social activities. While the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were having cocktails at the White House, hundreds of “low ranking Munchkins” were congregating in friendly manners across the nation’s capital.
As a result of these cordial friendships, my own standards of ethical communication in the political arena were fashioned. The same can be said for my colleagues at that point in time. These ethical communication standards included:
- consideration of divergent points of view
- active listening to the viewpoints of others
- collaborative efforts when it came to political issues, including problem solving
- respect for differences of opinion and perspective
- honesty when discussing political issues
- avoidance of anger
- support of other’s endeavors unless absolutely politically impossible
By the early 1990s, a shift in the development and existence of cordial friendships in the D.C. political arena became apparent. Although cordial friendships were possible and existed, by this juncture in time, these connections tended to be intra-party. In other words, rather than public servants of different types connecting and socializing across party lines, cordial relationships became ever increasingly a function of relationships among people within the same political party.
Coinciding with this shift was a movement within the Republican Party in which self-identified Christian conservatives made an active push for control of the internal apparatus of the party structure itself. (I recall in 1992 arriving at a morning national GOP committee meeting which historically would have been an eye-opener breakfast featuring “adult beverages.” In its place, a prayer meeting was conducted. Although this may seem unrelated to the issue of ethical communications and its relationship to cordial friendship, this shift marked in my mind marked the decline of broader friendships within the Republican Party itself – which is discussed shortly in this paper.)
Although not as extreme in the early 1990s, the Democratic Party experienced a shift towards the left. Prior to this time, a group within the Democratic Party called the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was gaining steam. The group brought together moderate to conservative Democrats who were willing to work across the aisle with moderate Republicans. One of the “poster politicians” for the DLC as an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton.
In his own race for the presidency in 1992, Clinton was forced to shift towards the left in a manner somewhat like what occurs at the other end of the spectrum in the GOP. (It must be noted that the rightward tilt within the GOP has been more extreme – in my opinion – than the comparable trend leftward within the Democrat Party.)
From my vantage point, by the time of the 2008 presidential election the existence of cordial friendships among public servants and political operatives in the same party had become the exception and not the norm. Cordial friendships between Democrats and Republicans were virtually non-existent.
The associated decay in communication ethics was apparent, from my perspective (still in the trenches). In 2008, I was working on behalf of the Democratic ticket through a political action committee established by the AFL-CIO. My colleagues had absolutely no friendships of any type with individuals active in Republican Party politics. Additionally, I found that they did not feel any real constraints when it came to the manner in which they would rhetorically attack the opposition. In simple terms, they seemed to have adopted the concept that “anything goes” and that was “just fine.”
In my encounters during the course of the campaign, I found the same type of unbridled rhetoric flourishing from GOP activists. The absence of cordial friendships, and its associated civility, seemed to eliminate any ethical process for filtering campaign rhetoric. (Forni, 2002) Moreover, from the prospective of both the Republican and Democrat activists, the opposition was demonized and seemed to be so classified without any regard for the specific individuals that made up that opposition.
Although I did not specifically realize the paradigm I was utilizing, during this campaign I applied a democratic code of ethics to my decision making process regarding my involvement in that campaign. (Arnett, 2009) I ultimately elected to work exclusively on ballot initiatives in the United States as opposed to candidates. The rhetorical intensity and “nastiness” was far less intense. Indeed, by the time the Democratic National Convention rolled around, I elected not to attend because of my personal feelings regarding the manner in which the overall presidential election campaign was being run by both major parties.
Democratic Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
In considering the decline of cordial friendships among public officials in the nation’s capital, and the associated political communication process, key democratic ethical goods generally are not satisfied. Seven key goods generally are considered promoted through a democratic ethics scheme:
- public decision making
- freedom of speech
- collaboration
- openness to new ideas
- justice
- public over the private
- respect for differences
The manner in which the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, underscores how the key “goods” of democratic ethics were not satisfied. Each of the primary goods are considered in turn.
In the final analysis, public decision making was not a key component of the passage of the ACA by Congress. In fact, primary sessions involving the law were conducted behind closed doors with only the majority party present. (The Democrats argue the Republicans refused to attend; the Republicans argue they were barred from attending.) In the end, the law was never brought to a true up or down vote in the United States Senate. Rather, it was “passed” by the Senate using a procedural technique theretofore reserved for budgetary issues and not to enact major laws.
Freedom of speech was stifled in a number of ways. Lawmakers were limited, and in some cases prohibited all together, from making statements on the floor of either chamber. Full and free debate about the law was impossible among the public at large because the text of the legislation was not even made public until the eleventh hour. Finally, and notoriously, no Member of Congress read the legislation before they voted yay or nay on it.
There was no meaningful collaboration between Members of Congress with differing perspectives on the legislation. Indeed, this is not only true between Republicans and Democrats but within the majority party itself. On related notes, there was little respect for differences (some would argue there was none at all) and there was no significant openness to new ideas (again, some would argue that there was none).
Failing to abide by a scheme that recognized these essential goods of democratic ethics would have been inconceivable in the 1980s, inconceivable during an era in which cordial friendships exists among public servants. The interpersonal relationships that existed between Members of Congress (across party lines) and, perhaps more importantly, among Congressional staff members would have encouraged and not impaired the achievement of the basic or key goods associated with democratic ethics: public decision making, collaboration, respect for differences, openness to new ideas and so forth.
Injecting even a more rudimentary type of friendship, of the kind defined by “cordial friendship,” acts at least to some degree to prevent abuses in the decision making process. In other words, when Members of Congress and their staffers had cordial friendships with their cohorts or colleagues that were far less likely to engage in behavior that run afoul of the goods enumerated in a democratic ethical code. (Greene, 2008)
Utilitarian Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
In analyzing the overall decline of cordial friendships among public officials in the nation’s capital, and the associated political communication process, the key beliefs underpinning utilitarian ethics generally are not met. Four primary beliefs generally are associated with utilitarian ethics:
- greatest good for the greatest number
- least amount of pain
- good is whatever brings the greatest happiness
- teleological (consequences of the means in relation to the ends)
In applying utilitarian ethics to the state of political rhetoric, communication and discourse in light of the decline of cordial friendships, I also suggest that the key beliefs associated with utilitarianism are also not being met. I concede that there exist a variety of reasons why political communication and public policy outcomes are not meeting the key beliefs associated with utilitarian ethics. However, I contend that the lack of cordial friendships is a key factor.
In this day and age I am no longer convinced that the majority of public servants and political operatives have as their objective fighting for causes that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. (Arnett, 2009) Rather, I suggest that the objective is to advocate for the greatest good for a select swath of constituents (and constituents does not necessarily mean the voting or general public). In addition, I think we have moved into an era in which public servants and political operatives actually latch on to public policy positions in order to cause damage to the opposition. Had cordial friendships remained commonplace, these types of malevolent machinations would not be occurring to the degree to which they do in 2014.
Kantian Ethics, the Decline of Cordial Friendships and
Ethical Political Communication
Kantian ethics center on the idea that one absolute right exists among human beings. The one absolute human right, according to Immanuel Kant is the right to be left alone. (Wood, 2007). In the overall analysis of the presence of cordial friendship underpinning ethical political communication, and the decline of that type of friendship among D.C. public servants, the right to be left alone oftentimes is not achieved in either situation. In the matter of applying Kantian ethics to political communication and the end result of debate and discourse, the presence or absence of cordial friendship seems to be of little impact when it comes to the achievement of the Kantian ideal of being left alone. (Arnett, 2009)
In my analysis of the decline of cordial friendship and Kantian ethics, I ultimately concluded that the presence or absence of this relationship has no impact on the one absolute human right set forth by Kant. In our system of government, whether the political climate includes cordial friendship or not, there are stark limitations on when, where and why an individual in the United States truly is going to be left alone.
Conclusion
In my final analysis, I do feel the virtual absence of cordial friendships among public servants and political operatives, particularly in Washington, D.C., has been a significant contributing factor to the decline in ethical communication in the political arena. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he “never considered a difference of opinion in politics … as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” As far as public servants and political operatives as a whole are concerned today, it is the only litmus test for friendship. As such, it has rendered ethical political communication the exception rather than the rule.
References
Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. H., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forni, P.M. (2002). Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct. New York: St. Martins.
Greene, J.O, & Burleson, B.R. (2008). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katrandjian, O. (June 18, 2011). ABC News. Washington, D.C.: American Broadcasting Company.
Matthews, C. (2013). Tip and the Gipper: When politics worked. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
O’Neill, T. (2012, October 5). Frenemies: A love story. The New York Times, p. O-1.
Spencer, L., & Pahl, R. (2006). Rethinking friendship: Hidden solidarities today. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wood, A. (2007). Kantian ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment