The Ethics of Candidates Telling America's Story

Image generated by Google Gemini

Kamala Harris said she accepted the Democratic nomination for president “On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth…” In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump said “we must…write our own thrilling chapter of the American story.” Other speakers at the conventions used the word “story” to talk about the nation and their own lives.

That both parties relied on the metaphor of a story to make their case is neither new nor surprising. In his influential 1983 book about national identity, political scientist Benedict Anderson wrote that a nation “is an imagined political community.” Nations have borders, laws, an official currency, and other administrative structures. But what gives life to those structures, what makes a nation more than paperwork and lines on a map, is the story it tells itself, about itself. As former Obama senior advisor and political analyst Ben Rhodes put it, “Every nation is a story. It’s almost never a simple one, and the story’s meaning is usually contested. National identity itself depends upon how we tell the story—about our past, our present moment, and our future.” 

A national story may be more important in America than elsewhere. In comparing the stories told by the Democrats and Republicans at their conventions, the AP’s Ted Anthony wrote that “Americans live in one of the only societies that was built not upon hundreds of years of common culture but upon stories themselves… In some ways, the United States…willed itself into existence and significance by iterating and reiterating its story as it went.” When politicians talk about a “battle for the soul of America” they are talking about battle for America’s story. It is a dispute over our collective past and our shared future. Cleverly crafted stories make good political strategies. They also raise important ethical questions.

The American story is complicated, to say the least. On one hand, it is heroic and bold, full of soaring statements about equality, hope, faith, and opportunity. On the other hand, the man who wrote “All men are created equal” owned slaves, and most of our homes are on land Europeans stole from the people who were there first. Our economy relies on the work of visionary college dropouts like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg who ran with bold ideas. But women are still paid less than men for comparable work. For every story of persistence and success against the odds, there more stories of systems that thwart ambition and crush promise. As Flavor Flav pointed out long before he was America’s sweet and kooky uncle at the Paris Olympics, Elvis may have been a hero to most, but not everyone shares that view.

A story about a nation cannot capture all the facts, all the time. Stories leave in and leave out, highlight and hide. The most compelling stories are never fully true, but to work they must be true to life. It might be true that only in America could a “skinny kid with a funny name” become president, as Barack Obama declared in 2004 in Boston and again 20 years later in Chicago. But as a number of studies have found, job applicants with names that “sound white” get called back more often than those with names that “sound black.” Is it ethical for Harris to declare that “We are the heirs to the greatest democracy in the history of the world” given the disparities written into the Constitution, and that many Americans weren’t allow to vote for much of our nation’s history because of their race or gender? Is it ethical for either candidate to say that their political party alone is telling the true American story?

One way toward an answer is that candidates should tell a national story that is honest and also hopeful. In his prescient 1999 book Achieving Our Country, philosopher Richard Rorty wrote, “Stories about what a nation has been and should try to be are not attempts at accurate representation, but rather attempts to forge a moral identity.” In this view, an ethical story is one that honestly acknowledges the past and presents a better future. If America is still in the making, as many argue, then the most effective and ethical stories are ones that move us closer to our ideals. As candidates crisscross the country over the remaining weeks before the election, they should tell an American story that is honest about our past and present, and that offers a future that is as good as its promise. This story elevates people rather than degrades them, talks about what we can do together rather than why we should be apart, and that moves us toward the more perfect union promised in our founding documents. That story is always in the making, and one worth trying to make come true. An ethical – and strategically effective – story is one that helps America become as good as its promise.

Notes - Fall 2024

Roughly once a week the Project on Ethics in Political Communication highlights something we’re reading and something we’re watching. We will largely (though not entirely) avoid the presidential election on the assumption that readers are already following it closely, and probably have strong opinions about the candidates and their rhetorical strategies.

September 16, 2024

What We’re Reading
Political Violence and Racist Lies

Two things caught our attention over the weekend, hence a Monday morning email.

First are the flip responses to another attempt on former president Trump’s life. As Politico wrote this morning:

We’ve been struck, even before yesterday’s incident, just how loose people across the ideological spectrum have been with their offhand discussion, or even encouragement, of political violence.

The point of democracy is that we argue and vote rather than assault and shoot. Political violence should never be celebrated - even if you believe the cause is righteous. Want to prevent Trump and his allies from holding power? Campaign against their policies and vote against their candidacies. Do not celebrate, make light of, or dismiss political violence.

The second is Republican vice presidential nominee, Senator J D Vance’s ongoing nonsense about Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio. This is a topic we raised last week, and bears repeating because of Vance’s argument that he is “creating stories” to draw media attention to Springfield - even though, as he put it, “it’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false…” The rumors, which the state’s Republican governor have called “a piece of garbage,” are disrupting communities and threatening lives. They also feed anti-immigrant sentiment, which is hugely damaging and runs counter to American ideals. Senator Vance’s comments are unethical and profoundly irresponsible.

What We’re Watching
Legislative Theater

Congress is back and busy continuing to not legislate.

The federal fiscal year ends in 14 days, and the House is no closer to keeping the lights on than they were a month ago. There are real ideological differences about government funding - there’s also a lot of politics 50 days before an election.

As Congress tries to find a way to keep the lights on, both parties are trying to force votes on legislation that won’t pass, but that will put their opponents on the record supporting policies that could come with electoral costs. For example, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is again pushing a “Right to IVF” bill to take advantage of Republican differences over the appropriateness of IVF and whether or not the government should mandate that insurance companies cover the cost of the treatment, as Trump has said.

This and similar messaging bills are ethically complicated. On one hand they help the American people see where candidates stand on important issues - casting a vote puts a legislator on the record. On the other hand, the bills are also rhetorical devices never meant to become law. They are ads as much as they are ideas.

We’re watching to see when (and if) politics gives way to policy.

September 12, 2024

What We’re Reading
Memes and Nonsense

We are reading way too much about Trump’s racist nonsense about Haitians in Ohio. One of the post popular talking points from this week’s debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris was Trump’s claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH are eating pets. Liberals are “marking themselves safe from pet eaters” on Facebook and news programs in the US and around the world are showing the clip and asking commentators about it. In the ever expanding universe of ridiculous things to say, Trump’s claim is a bright shining star.

And I really wish everyone would stop talking about it. There are three reasons for this. First, some people believe it. As a result an already tense situation is getting dangerous. City officials closed city hall and county offices, and evacuated a school because of bomb threats. Garbage rumors are threatening lives. Second, repeating the nonsense, even to mock it, reinforces a frame that immigrants are dangerously different. People can see the memes and think “immigrants eat weird food and have weird customs but even they wouldn’t eat cats…” The frame that immigrants are different and do not quite belonging is reinforced, which was the point of the lie. Finally, every moment we’re talking about whether or not beleaguered people fleeing a failed state and hoping to find hope and shelter in the promise that America can be, is a moment we aren’t talking about Trump praising Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Orbán is a “right wing populist” who has clamped down on the free press, undermined the independent judiciary, and is close to Putin. Focusing on Trump’s nonsense about Haitians makes life worse for those he attacked and distracts from the very real issue that Trump looks to dictators as role models.

What We’re Watching
You’ve (Hopefully) Got Mail

Ballots are already in the mail and more are coming. There will be a surge of mail to voters, and from voters back to election offices. That has election officials nervous. We are watching to see how election officials and the US Postal Service ensure ballots are delivered and votes counted, and how those officials assure voters their votes are being counted. We are also watching to see which campaigns remind voters that American elections have never been more accurate, and which campaigns use logistics as an excuse to undermine faith in election outcomes. If elections don’t work, democracy fails. But it’s not enough for something to be true, people also have to believe it. If voters don’t have faith in elections - even if elections are fair and accurate - democracy cannot work.

What We’re Reading
Making Promises You Can’t Keep

Donald Trump recently promised to pay for IVF treatments if elected president. For her part, Kamala Harris said she would “…bring back the bipartisan border security bill that [Trump] killed and I will sign it into law.” Neither candidate can keep their promise without the help of Congress - which is unlikely to support the former and has already rejected the latter. Both candidates, in other words, are making promises they can’t keep.

These claims brought to mind a political communication ethics case study on candidates using vague rhetoric and making false promises. One argument is that of course people shouldn’t promise to do things they can’t do - it’s both a bad thing to do, and risks increasing voter cynicism because elected officials never do what they say. On the other hand, campaign promises are ways of expressing a candidate’s values. In the case of Trump, saying he would make IVF treatment free is a way of saying he cares about helping families. Harris’ position says she supports both border security and being bipartisan. The policy itself may matter less than what the policy conveys about a candidate’s priorities and values.

What We’re Watching
Debates Budget and Presidential

Next week’s scheduled presidential debate is getting the headlines. We, of course, will be watching.

Getting less attention are the bubbling debates about the federal budget. The federal fiscal year ends at the end of this month. As has has become their habit, Congress has yet to pass federal appropriations bills and is instead working on a temporary solution, or continuing resolution (CR). Congress is debating about adding a provision that would require people to prove they’re US citizens before they can register to vote (it’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote, and there is no evidence non-citizen voting is a problem). They are also debating about the length of the CR. House Speaker Mike Johnson is proposing a six-month CR, others want a shorter term deal, and some don’t want a deal at all and prefer that the government down (an unlikely outcome, but on the table).

The whole thing is ethically suspect. Congress is using people’s paychecks to score partisan points. Putting agencies - and therefore the people who work in those agencies and their families - in limbo. This treats people as means to political ends. Connecting legislation that would make the illegal illegaler while inventing a scary problem that doesn’t exist and that is unrelated to federal funding, is about politics, not paying the bills.

Budgets are reflections of values. The current budget debate says Congress cares more about politics than it does policymaking. We are watching to see if Speaker Johnson can quickly dispense with the political posturing and focus on the task of governing. We are ever skeptical, but ever hopeful.

What We’re Reading
The Ethics of America’s Story

Ted Anthony of the Associated Press recently wrote, “Americans live in one of the only societies that was built not upon hundreds of years of common culture but upon stories themselves.” As he points out, what the American story is and who gets to tell it “can be a contentious thing.”

Countless scholars from countless disciplines have argued that human beings tell stories to make sense of a complex and seemingly chaotic world. Stories help us identify causes, assign credit and blame, explain our current circumstances, and help tell us what comes next.

Politicians tell stories to explain current events and how people should feel about the future. They tell us it’s “morning in America” and that their personal stories - and therefore our personal stories - are "uniquely American.” Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama were masters of this narrative.

But of course America’s story is more complicated than that. It includes slavery, mass killing, cruelty, and exploitation. The United States has never been as good as its ideals. Bill Clinton might have been wrong when he said, “there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

What, then, are the ethics of telling an American story? Should we be, as philosopher Richard Rorty argued, “loyal to a dream country rather than the one to which [we] wake up in the morning”? Should candidates, as I have argued, ground their rhetoric in a prophetic version of American civil religion? Should candidates tell an aspirational story of who we could be, a clear-eyed story of who we are, or whatever story works to win an election? Should they tell some combination of the real, ideal and pragmatic? Or do the ethics of it matter at all? What, if any, ethical obligation do politicians have to the story of America itself?

---

What We’re Watching
False Claims of Election Fraud

In 2016 Donald Trump claimed the Iowa Caucuses were rigged for Sen. Ted Cruz. He has been lying about the 2020 election for four years. Now Trump is building on those lies to undermine faith in the 2024 election.

A number of states have passed or tried to pass rules making it more difficult to certify election results. These moves are largely driven by people who still wrongly say that Trump won the 2020 election. Ungrounded arguments of fraud driving these efforts can needlessly delay election results and distort outcomes. Nonsense claims of widespread fraud undermine faith in elections.

Evidence-based claims of fraud should, of course, be taken seriously by election officials. But groundless claims, driven by politics, and meant to undermine faith in the outcome of an election that hasn’t even happened yet, decrease trust in a core democratic institution. If people don’t believe in elections, democracy is done.

We are watching to see how the press, elected and appointed officials - and ultimately candidates - respond to attempts to pre-deny the outcome of the 2024 election.

Recording: US Rep Charlie Dent, a new old GOP and better politics.

Project Director Peter Loge talked to former US Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) about a new, old GOP, making politics less divisive, and the need to “talk about things that unite us.”

You can watch the conversation here.

Learn more about Congressman Dent’s Our Republican Legacy here.

Event: US Rep Charlie Dent, a new push for the old GOP and better political rhetoric

Join the Project on Ethics in Political Communication on Tuesday, June 25 from 9:00 - 9:30am ET for a Zoom webinar with former US Rep Charlie Dent (R-PA) about a new effort called Our Republican Legacy.

On their website the organization writes, “We stand against the divisive tactics of both right and left that divide Americans as “us against them” by exploiting emotions of grievance and rage.” We will talk to Congressman Dent about this call for a better political rhetoric.

When: 
Tuesday, June 25 2024
9:00 - 9:30am ET

Where:
Zoom - We will send a link the day before the event

Details and registration here

Notes - Summer 2024

Roughly once a week the Project on Ethics in Political Communication highlights something we’re reading and something we’re watching. We will largely (though not entirely) avoid the presidential election on the assumption that readers are already following it closely, and probably have strong opinions about the candidates and their rhetorical strategies.

August 15, 2024

What We’re Reading
Harris’ Online Ads

The Harris campaign is getting attention - none of it positive - for deceptive ads on Google. Earlier this week, Sara Fischer at Axios wrote:

The Harris campaign has been editing news headlines and descriptions within Google search ads that make it appear as if the Guardian, Reuters, CBS News and other major publishers are on her side…

As Fast Company notes, this isn’t a new practice, and doesn’t violate Google’s terms of service. But that doesn’t make it OK. If you have to explain that something is ethical because it technically doesn’t violate terms of service, and besides others have done it, you should probably do something else.

What We’re Watching
The DNC and the FEC on AI

Like everyone reading this, we’re going to be watching the Democratic National Convention next week. There will be balloons (so many balloons), amazing convention couture, campaign swag, and a whole lot of speeches. We will be watching for speeches that are partisan, sharp, and ethical. We hope the Democrats make their case passionately and persuasively - and in ways that promote democratic institutions and reinforce democratic norms. As always, we’re hopeful if skeptical.

We are also watching to see what will happen in the wake of today’s Federal Elections Commission vote on artificial intelligence and deceptive campaign ads. The FEC is expected to pass a “disposition of petition for rulemaking,” putting the issue to bed for now. In addition to FEC inaction, Axios writes that the FEC and the Federal Communications Commission have been arguing over jurisdiction and approaches to AI. The Washington Post points out that this turf war and general inaction could leave “voters largely unprotected ahead of the 2024 election.”

Senator Schumer and others may try to attach some AI regulations to budget and other “must pass” legislation in the coming weeks. But “may” is not “will,” a lot of must pass legislation (most notably the budget) doesn’t pass, and eight weeks before an election isn’t a great time to establish the rules for a campaign that has been going on for several years. In the absence of federal action, some states are passing their own rules about AI and campaigns.

We’re watching to see how all this shakes out. We’re patient, it could be a while.

July 29, 2024

What We’re Reading
Political Violence and Republicans on Harris

In his weekly newsletter for Good Authority John Sides highlighted a new paper on public support for political violence. As Sides notes, the researchers had a survey in the field when the attempt was made on former president Trump’s life. The coincidence made for a timely paper. Researchers found that Republican support for political violence fell after the shooting. Sides argues this is in part because the assassination attempt and political violence were condemned by Republicans and Democrats. No one called for revenge or escalation.

As Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert in political violence, told Politico:

The most important thing is for political figures to speak out, and we need them to speak out on all sides of the political spectrum…You stop political violence through accountability, widespread condemnation from your own side and public revulsion…It’s all of us regular people saying we don’t want this in our society, and we’re going to change how we speak about the other side to make it less common. It’s the “Have you no shame?” moment, as in the McCarthy trials.

The other good news is the quick condemnation of racist and sexist attacks on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. A handful of prominent Republicans attacked Harris based on her race and gender - and they were quickly shut down. Former Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said, “You don’t need to talk about what she looks like or what gender she is…” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and other leading Republicans have made the same point over the past week.

Campaigns should be tough. The stakes are high and elections have consequences. But as many leading Republicans have made clear over the past few weeks, politics should never be violent, and campaigns should be about what candidates stand for, not what they look like.

What We’re Watching
Will it Hold?

As I note above, there is a lot to like about political rhetoric over the past couple of weeks (if you like political rhetoric, which can generously be called an acquired taste).

As the campaign slips into a more predictable rhythm, will adversaries keep checking their language? Or, as the election draws closer, will they revert to politics as usual? American politics has always been terrible. In 1960 “…former president Harry Truman told voters they might go to hell if they voted for Richard Nixon.” The Adams/Jefferson race of 1800 set the bar for garbage. But just because something has often been bad, doesn’t mean it always has to be bad.

We are are watching to see if pundits and pols keep their language sharp, but violent, sexist or racist.

July 22, 2024

The last 18 hours have been something else. Biden’s dropping out wasn’t entirely surprising given the last 10 days, but that doesn’t make what comes next any less of a scramble. Anyone who tells you they know what’s going to happen next is lying, delusional or both.

Today I’m sticking with political violence in the first section, and talking about the RNC and Democrats in the second section.

What We’re Reading
Coverage of Political Violence - Cont.

The coverage of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump has quickly become a story about bureaucratic failure. Congress is holding hearings, politicians are calling for resignations, and there will almost certainly be independent commissions and reports.

Underlying questions of how we improve the quality of political discourse, beyond vague calls for unity and “dialing back the rhetoric,” are fading.

A recent piece in Politico Magazine by Michael Schaffer highlights the need to continue to pay attention to rising threats and violence. As Schaffer wrote:

“…as the FBI and Homeland Security warn of possible retaliatory attacks following the Trump shooting, I think the better question is: What does this mood do to the functioning of a society?”

A challenge is that issues are about a lot things at the same time, but we only tend to focus on one angle or “about” at once. In political science speak, issues are multidimensional. The angle we pick determines the range of policy options and responses, who the experts are, where decisions are made, and so on. If the shooting is about the failure of a person or agency, Congress holds hearings, people get fired, and we move on.

Treating threats and violence as normal or even necessary, risks threats and violence becoming things that are normal or even necessary. In this case, acting as if something is true can make it true. As Joe Goldman, president of the Democracy Fund, recently wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “[t]he problem comes when political leaders and media figures make light of or justify violence, providing their supporters with permission or even encouragement to act.”

Our democracy can neither afford to pretend a Congressional hearing can solve violence, nor can it afford to treat threats and violence normal or even good. We need to find our way to a place where we can disagree in ways that strengthen, rather than weaken, our democracy. It is up to all of us who teach, do, and write about politics promote a politics that is passionate without being destructive.

What We’re Watching
The RNC and the Democratic Establishment

Last week we watched the Republican National Convention. We expected hyperbole, soaring speeches, convention couture, cheering, and balloons. We weren’t disappointed. That professional wrestler Hulk Hogan appeared before Trump says it all - political conventions are a scripted spectacle about politics that immerses viewers in the show. Somewhere, Roland Barthes is smiling.

The first half hour of former president Trump’s speech was what one would hope for and expect. Senator Vance told a familiar and compelling American story, one with the same plot as stories told by Bill Clinton and Barak Obama at previous Democratic conventions. Connections to facts were often coincidental, but that’s not the point. The point is the show, and it was a good show.

The Democrats are in a much tighter spot. We are watching how Democrats will navigate several ethical challenges:

• What are the ethics of a handful of political insiders deciding the Democratic presidential nominee at the last minute? If given a chance, Democratic primary voters might also decide to vote for Harris (or whomever the roughly 4,600 delegates to the Democratic National Convention select), and there obviously isn’t time to hold a series of primaries and caucuses, but that doesn’t make the ethical question go away.

• How can Democrats continue to make the case that Trump is an existential threat to democracy without inciting (or at least excusing) political violence? It can be easy to say that these are extreme times that call for extreme measures. As Goldman points out, that would be a mistake.

We’re watching to see if, and if so how, Democrats navigate these challenges. As always, we’re hopeful but not entirely optimistic.

July 17, 2024

What We’re Reading
Coverage of Political Violence

The attempt on Trump’s life was of horrific and should not have happened. It was good to see all political corners immediately and firmly condemn the action.

This week we are reading the coverage of the shooting to see if it marks a turn in how the press and pundits talk about political violence. Much of the early coverage has focused on what impact the event will have on the campaign. This is an understandable, and terrible, approach. Asking about the electoral impact of the shooting puts the shooting in the context of campaign events - it becomes a speech, rally or endorsement. It’s horse race coverage of polls, except the sport is Rollerball.

Coverage of political violence as a normal or inevitable part of campaigns risks further normalizing political violence. It says “this is what we do in politics, this is how politics is.”

Better media coverage would look at the causes and consequences of political violence. It would note that most politics, most of the time, should be mostly boring. Coverage would highlight fierce debates that result in policy rather than stalemate or gunfire.

We look forward to reading ongoing coverage that holds candidates and elected officials accountable for violent and dehumanizing rhetoric. I don’t want to read about what someone says coming out of church on Sunday morning, I want to read about what someone does in a bar on Friday night.

What We’re Watching
The Republican National Convention

The Republican National Convention in Milwaukee will be a good test of whether or not pundits and pols really will spend more time calling for unity and less time calling their opponents agents of evil.

We expect to see lots of talk of policy, lots of hyperbolic rhetoric, lots of buttons and balloons. We hope to see lots of spirited and partisan speeches that focus on differences of opinion. Hopefully we won’t see a lot of bitterness, anger and hate. So far, we’ve been let down.

July 11, 2024

What We’re Reading
Digital Fundraising Ethics

The American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) recently issued digital fundraising guidelines. The guidelines are a good baseline for candidate and advocacy campaigns. Among other things, the guidelines say that campaigns shouldn’t promise fake matches, mislead people about who they’re raising money for, and ensure people can opt-out of donating or receiving email. It’s a good start.

A few years ago, former Republican operative Tim Miller wrote that,

“…grass-roots fund-raising is also what ending democracy looks like. As with any other mass movement, people-powered campaigns followed the standard Hofferian trajectory: beginning as a cause, turning into a business and becoming a racket. Our online fund-raising system is not only enriching scam artists, clogging our inboxes and inflaming the electorate; it is also empowering our politics’ most nefarious actors.”

Miller wrote on the heels of Donald Trump’s well publicized, incredibly deceptive, practice of making donors automatically give monthly rather than just once. Many of those tricked into donating monthly are elderly and vulnerable.

Email and text fundraising appeals that amount to “donate $5 or I’ll shoot this dog” may boost donations in the short term. But they burn out lists, turn off voters, increase cynicism, and unfairly take advantage of people. If you can’t raise money by making an honest case for your cause or candidate, you should probably rethink who you support.

What We’re Watching
Campaign Coverage

This is a political season unlike any we’ve seen before. Both major party candidates for President have held the office, and neither is terribly popular. Both have well documented personal challenges. The public and press are concerned about the impacts of artificial intelligence, social media, and foreign governments on the outcome of the US elections. Public trust in virtually every democratic institution is down.

All of this as we head into the Republican National Convention next week and media coverage of the very public concerns about Biden’s health continues to rage.

We are, of course, watching all of this. We are also continuing to watch to see if the coverage helps resolve challenges facing our democracy, or if the coverage exacerbates them. The President’s health, the former President’s legal challenges, voter dissatisfaction, election interference, and the rest are newsworthy. The media should cover them. The question is how, and to what end. If all the coverage is all spectacle - show for show’s sake - then democracy suffers.

Politics can be entertaining, but politics as entertainment diminishes our shared democratic experiment. It makes our coming together, the way we resolve and manage differences to solve shared problems and advance shared interests, a sideshow. Politics isn’t something that’s over there about those people - it is us. Media coverage of politics should reflect our shared interest in, and investment in, our shared success.

July 3, 2024

What We’re Reading
Plato and the Debate

Like most readers of this email, I followed last week’s Biden/Trump debate and am watching all the fall out. Most of the discussion has been about Biden’s performance. Some attention has been given to Trump’s false or misleading claims, and even less coverage to Biden’s. But the overwhelming amount of punditry has been focused on how Biden and Trump appeared, not on what they said.

This seems like a good time to revisit Plato.

Plato spent a lot of time pointing out why sophists were bad people who risked poisoning the souls of their students (Protagoras). In the Phaedrus, the sophist Phaedrus says that a good speech isn’t one that is true. Instead, a good speech argues “not what is really right, but what is likely to seem right in the eyes of the mass of people who are going to pass judgment: not what is really good or fine but what will seem so…” Plato says this belief can have dangerous results - if neither the speaker nor the audience knows what’s actually true, then people can do some really stupid things. For example, they might send someone into battle without the proper preparation (Phaedrus) or take medical advice from good speakers who don’t know anything about medicine and ignore medical advice from people who don’t sound clever (Gorgias).

Most of us want a leader who sounds compelling, whose presence reassures us that they are sharp and in command of the facts. But the content of what they say matters as well. Plato reminds us that ethical political communication must be grounded in reality.

What We’re Watching
”Expert” predictions and horse races

All of that said about Biden, Trump and Plato, like everyone else who follows politics, we’re watching the conversation around Biden. It is worth recalling that Phil Tetlock pointed out that, “expert” political political predictions are usually terrible. As Louis Menand wrote in his New Yorker review of the book, “Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys…”

Our interest here is less in what happens (we’re interested in that, just not here) and more in how the decision gets talked about. The first instinct of many journalists and pundits maybe to talk about the impacts on the politics - horse race journalism (yes, I know this is an “expert” political prediction and therefore suspect). As Denise-Marie Ordway put it in the Journalist’s Resource from the Shorenstein Center at Harvard, “When journalists covering elections focus primarily on who’s winning or losing instead of policy issues –what’s known as horse race coverage — voters, candidates and the news industry itself suffer, a growing body of research suggests.”

Regardless of who the Democratic or Republican nominees are for president, or for any other office, we hope that pundits and journalists focus more on policy than personality, and more of substance than style.

June 26, 2024

What We’re Reading
Elite Misinformation?

In his most recent Slow Boring piece, Matt Yglesias argues that “Elite misinformation is an underrated problem.” He defines elite misinformation as “erroneous ideas that are perpetrated by mainstream institutions.” Two of the examples he highlights are recent news about maternal mortality in the US and fossil fuel subsidies.

Both are a big deal, and both need to be dealt with. But, as Yglesias notes, the apparent recent surge in maternal mortality is largely the result of how maternal mortality is measured, not its current rate compared to past rates. Again, maternal mortality is a critical issue, but not one that is suddenly getting much worse.

A different take on elite misinformation is what counts as a “subsidy.” For most of us, most of the time, a subsidy means a specific and immediate benefit - tax breaks, matching dollars, that sort of thing. But a subsidy can also mean long term costs of the impacts of something paid for by someone else. For example, I subsidize the heath care costs of those without health insurance who suffer from illnesses in part brought on by their own choices (smoking, eating a lot of food that’s bad for them, etc.).

Surging rates of mortality, excessive subsidies and other headline grabbers can help draw attention to important issues. Policymakers tend to focus on a limited number of issues at a time. If your issue isn’t on the agenda, it probably won’t get dealt with. That doesn’t make policy hyperbole OK.

We all get frustrated when those with whom we disagree make rhetorical mountains out of policy mole hills. We rightly point out that it’s unfair and misleading when opponents claim a few anecdotes are the same as actual data, exaggerate impacts, take advantage of vague or slippery language, or otherwise fudge the facts. If our opponents shouldn’t do it, we probably shouldn’t do it either. As Yglesias succinctly puts it, “lying to people is bad.”

What We’re Watching
The Debate

Of course we’re planning to watch Thursday’s scheduled debate between President Biden and former President Trump. Not because we want to, but because we have to. I for one would rather watch the Copa America. Since I teach and talk about political communication (I’ll be part of C-SPAN’s pregame show on Thursday) I am obligated to watch the debate and think of thoughtful things to say about it afterwards.

My hope is that both candidates will show the best of what political debate can be: pointed, sharp, insightful, educational, and rational. I also hope that both candidates go out of their way to praise critical democratic institutions like the courts, the media, elections, and higher education. As a fan of DC United, Arsenal and the Red Sox I am used to my hopes being dashed. But I hope nevertheless.

June 18, 2024

What We’re Reading
A new, old Republican Party?

Last month a handful of prominent Republican former elected officials announced an organization called Our Republican Legacy. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, the group’s chairs - former Republican Senators John C. Danforth (MO), William Cohen S. (ME) and Alan K. Simpson (WY) - wrote, “We believe that our nation’s well-being depends on having the positive, stabilizing influence of a healthy, two-party system, which we currently do not have…” The group is neither pro- nor anti-Trump. Rather it is looking post-Trump at a set of principles on which candidates can run. Next week former US Rep. Charlie Dent, an initial member of the group, will join me for a conversation about the effort. Stay tuned for details.

What We’re Watching
Recent Talks, Cheap Fakes and Primary Stories

Missed US Rep. Derek Kilmer’s conversation with the Project about why politicians and elected officials should behave ethically? You can check it out here.

Cheap fakes - deceptively edited clips, Frankenstein pictures assembled from bits of other images, images out of context, and so on - are in the news. For example, conservative media outlets and pundits are circulating videos of President Biden edited or used out of context to reinforce stereotypes about his age and mental acuity. This deception is wrong on its own. As it gets exposed it can also decrease public trust in media in general - if everything can be fake, then why would voters believe anything is real? One risk of mis and disinformation is that it can lead people to believe things that aren’t true. A knock-on risk is that it can lead people to believe nothing at all. To quote Warren Zevon’s theme song for the mid-90s show Tek War, “The skies are full of miracles/And half of them are lies.”

Finally, of course, we’re watching the primaries. We’re especially interested in the stories pundits, the press and campaigns tell about why candidates won or lost. People win or lose elections for all sorts of reasons, some of which may have little to do with the campaigns. But the story of why one won or lost can help determine what comes next, and how candidates behave in the future. If political professionals believe that bombastic candidates won because they were bombastic, future candidates will be bombastic. If the story is that bombast lost and reasoned discourse won, the future campaigns will be more reasonable.

Why Be Ethical? The recording and bonus links

US Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA) joined Project director Peter Loge to talk about why candidates and elected officials should behave ethically.

Congressman Kilmer led the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The Committee’s recommendations included ways in which Congress could improve collaboration and civility. The Committee also held several hearings on improving civility and bi-partisanship in Congress.

The Congressman also authored the Building Civic Bridges Act. This bi-partisan legislation that would “support communities in addressing sources of division by aiding local civic and community organizations. These efforts aim to confront contentious issues and, ultimately, bridge divides.”

As Representative Kilmer said, “we all have agency.” We can make politics better. So let’s get to it.

Event: Why Be Ethical?

On Tuesday, June 11 at 9:00am US Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) is joining the Project on Ethics in Political Communication to talk about why candidates and elected officials should be ethical - what are the incentives to behave well? Register for the conversation here.

We also asked half a dozen others to weigh in - two Republicans, two Democrats, a philosopher and a journalist. Their responses are below in alphabetical order. The authors’ full bios are at the bottom.

Prof. Jeffrey Brand
Associate Provost, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the George Washington University

Suppose you’re confident that a certain path is unethical, but not necessarily unlawful.  What reason might you have to avoid the unethical path?  The simplest answers concern the immediate probable effects of unethical conduct.  It might be counter-productive for you in the short term, damaging your professional reputation, your career prospects, and your net worth.

Even if it has no such negative effects in the short term, it might have them in the longer term. Even if the unethical path benefits you in a given case, taking it might inculcate habits in you that will lead you someday to make unethical decisions that seem expedient, but are actually bad for you.  Such bad habits could also spill over into other areas of life.  Ethics and prudence can be opposed, but there are many parallels.  The habit of acting unethically might make you more likely to act imprudently, as well.

In a given instance, of course, you might be confident that unethical conduct doesn’t threaten your long-term interests.  But your subjective confidence might be misplaced.  A better rule of thumb might be “always act ethically,” even when you’re fairly confident that the unethical choice is worth the risk. 

Unethical behavior can also deplete the fund of trust upon which civilization depends, even if its effects on the shared “trust fund” are imperceptible in any single case.  Analogously, the effect of a single combustion engine on rising sea levels is immeasurably miniscule, but their collective effects on sea levels is devastating.  Likewise with unethical conduct.  Some will see this as an independent reason to be ethical.

Situations in which you’re confident (and correctly so) that acting unethically will promote your long-term self-interest also provide unique opportunities to acquire self-knowledge.  They enable you to learn if you are a genuinely free, rational agent, willing and able to do the right thing for the right reason.  Choosing ethically can be a form of self-actualization.  Some even see these moments of unencumbered ethical choice as connecting them to the rest of humanity and beyond, to the transcendent, the universal, and the divine.

Philosophers can’t “think away” the reality of psychopaths, some of whom appear to know right from wrong, but find themselves with no motivation to do right.  We can only ask you if you wish to emulate them.  And hope that you don’t.

Dr. Mark P. Campbell
Senior Republican consultant

Ethical behavior in politics has never been more critical to winning elections, particularly in an era where voters, inundated with negativity and misinformation, are desperately seeking integrity in their candidates and elected officials. In a landscape where skepticism towards politicians runs deep, and "outsider" candidates often gain an edge for their perceived honesty, good ethics fosters trust. Voters are on the lookout for candidates who can break the mold of the traditional, often disingenuous, politician—a perceived rarity in today's political landscape.

Acknowledging this, it becomes essential to establish a system where ethical behavior is not just encouraged but rewarded, challenging the status quo epitomized by figures like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, who are seen as successful despite their questionable ethics. Introducing tangible incentives for ethical conduct—such as public recognition for transparency, and demanding ethical leadership from our representatives can significantly shift the political paradigm.

It's about playing the long game, fostering lasting trust with voters. Glenn Youngkin exemplifies this approach; the trust we built throughout his campaign, both with voters in Virginia and nationwide, not only benefits him as the current Governor of Virginia but also positions him favorably for possible future ambitions for a higher office. When an opponent’s ethical breach is revealed, the resulting damage is significant and often irreversible, regardless of how much consultants attempt to mitigate it through spending. Winners govern, losers complain, and exemplifying good ethics is crucial to building lasting trust and winning campaigns.

Paul Kendrick
Executive Director, Rust Belt Rising – Democratic candidate training organization

The incentive to be ethical—if one needs one beyond doing what’s morally right—is in taking the long-term considerations. 

Unethical practices are short-sighted and unsustainable.

We see this today in digital fundraising. You can bring in a quick buck with scammy emails, but it weakens your bond to an audience and your leadership brand. It is possible to write substantive content that motivates your audience to give by helping them understand why. That is not to say that it’s always easy to make these choices. Campaigns can rationalize things around the need to win, the righteousness of their cause, the more time it takes to write something compellingly of substance. But we are paying the price as a whole in politics when audiences once gave start tuning all of these emails out because people overdid it. That eventually hurts every campaign—the ones who were the worst actors too—so we can only hope people are thoughtful. In digital fundraising, I see ethics as being honest. If it’s not a real petition, don’t say it is. If you’re not really speaking on behalf of a famous leader, don’t say you are. Be honest about what you are doing, how this money helps, and be respectful to not over-ask. Treat an email list like a friend you’d ask.

Then when it comes to ethical actions in office, we are reminded by Senator Bob Menendez how unethical (well, in this case ultimately criminal) behavior catches up. Now that will be his legacy despite whatever good bills he voted for in his time as a Senator. Doing things right is ultimately rewarded by people in the reputation that you build for conscientiousness.

In the Obama White House, an expression I heard as to how to judge an action is “how would this look as a Washington Post headline?” Again, we want to do things right for the sake of it. But if that’s not enough, or if they are unintentional gray areas, then look at how it would be seen and make sure you do things you would be proud of. It’s still possible to win that way. You will win more years from now if you do. 

Kathryn Larson
Democratic Candidate, Idaho House of Representatives, District 1

People rationalize their behavior in the pursuit of power. Politics is the pursuit of power. Unethical behavior can accelerate the capture of some power – like elected office. Yet, power can also be quickly drained or gained when unethical behavior is exposed.

Michelle Obama gained power when she refused to go low. Liz Cheney gained personal power (while losing positional power) when she stood up to Trump. Michelle Obama and Liz Cheney could not be more different in their policies and beliefs. Yet, the same people grant both tremendous respect.

Unethical behavior and communication are transient. I believe that clear and transparent communication and refusing to jump into the muck will be rewarded. 

In my rural American district, a senator got elected by engaging in a smear campaign claiming that a multi-generational, favored son was a pedophile and supported human trafficking, among other things. The unethical senator’s campaign depended on a domain of motivated, primary, loyalist, voters among his religious base. Current data indicates that he has awakened the complacent middle. There’s been a huge surge in Republican party registrations to vote him out in the primary.

My grandfather – City Manager of Dallas – coached me, “Don’t do or say anything that you’d be embarrassed to see on the front page of the Dallas Morning News.” My add-on is “know that the bad actors will spread horrible rumors about you. Don’t give them any real fuel.” The older I get, the more I understand the wisdom in Papa’s words.

Reena Ninan
Journalist, Founder Good Trouble Productions

Ethical behavior in politics is the lifeline for maintaining public trust and confidence in government. When politicians act ethically, they show their commitment to public interest supersedes personal advancement. This creates faith in the political process. But too often that trust is so easily broken.  

If we move to incentivize ethical behavior in politics we might want to consider:

Stronger Laws
Passing any legislation through Congress seems impossible these days. But coupling tougher anti-corruption laws with severe penalties guaranteed to be enforced- could help with accountability and integrity. Too often anti-corruption laws have loopholes that are easy to circumvent. By ensuring tougher standards- with guarantees that penalties will be levied- might help to mitigate unethical behavior.

Public Accountability and Participation
A robust democracy requires public accountability, citizen participation, and transparent governance. Access to information about government activities and campaign finances is essential. However, opening up records isn't enough- we need to ensure citizens can easily find and access this information. Transparency and citizen engagement are crucial for holding politicians accountable for their financial actions.

Independent Media Support
Empowering journalists is also vital for fostering accountability and transparency. Stronger laws must protect them from harassment and legal threats. Whistleblowers are key in uncovering corruption- strengthening protections can encourage them to share information without fear. Independent media often lacks resources- funding and support for investigative journalism. 

Offering aid to these organizations would allow for more political corruption and ethics violations reporting.

 In summary, the incentives to be ethical in politics can range from helping to foster public trust through transparency, stronger laws, and better media protection and support. The focus on incentivizing ethical behavior is important.  It contributes to the overall health and stability of democracy.

Peyton Rollins
GW School of Media and Public Affairs student
Press assistant, Republican member of the US House

I am tempted to name multiple incentives motivating elected officials and candidates to behave ethically, but my gut tells me that there is only one: their constituents. Through elections, constituents control whether elected officials and candidates stay in office or not, and most want to see their elected officials and candidates behave ethically. In fact, a 2018 Pew Research study found that 91 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats agree that political officials need “to be honest and ethical.”

With this many Americans agreeing that elected officials need to behave ethically, every politician in the United States should be seen as a model of ethical behavior. Yet, a Gallup poll from last year found that just 10 percent of Americans thought members of Congress were “honest and ethical.” This is not just a Congressional problem: in a separate Gallup study, only around 42 percent said the Biden administration behaves ethically.

If constituents incentivize elected officials to behave ethically, then how do members of Congress and the President stay in office with such low ratings? In both polls cited above, there is high partisan disagreement over what it means to be ethical. In other words, a Republican in rural South Carolina and a Democrat in Los Angeles probably expect different ethical behavior from their elected officials. While constituents still incentivize officials and candidates to behave ethically, they are divided over what ethical behavior even means.

Author Bios:
Prof. Jeffrey Brand
Jeffrey Brand is Associate Provost for Undergraduate Affairs and Special Programs at the
George Washington University. He is also Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University
and affiliated with the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration. He
served as Associate Dean for Graduate Studies in the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences
from 2014-2019. Professor Brand has published on criminal sentencing theory, the ethics of
adjudication, and social contract theory, among other topics, in such journals as Ethics, Legal
Theory, and the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. His monograph, Limits of Legality:
The Ethics of Lawless Judging (Oxford University Press, 2010) appeared in Chinese translation
with China Renmin University Press in 2017. In 2010 he received the Morton A. Bender Award
for General Teaching Excellence from the University. He was a full-time visiting scholar in the
Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health in 2012-13. A graduate of Vassar
College, he holds a J.D. and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor.

Dr. Mark P. Campbell
Dr. Mark P. Campbell began his career as a Presidential Fellow during the Reagan Administration in the Department of Defense. Dr. Campbell was recently selected as a Pritzker Fellow by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Leadership Institute, where he teaches campaign management. He has worked with hundreds of federal, state, and local campaigns, winning numerous tough "down ballot" races in swing areas even when the top of the GOP ticket lost substantially. Dr. Campbell served as National Political Director for Ted Cruz for President. Other presidential campaigns include Rudy Giuliani, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Mark and his wife Kathy reside in Dallas, Texas, and have six grown children.

Paul Kendrick
Paul Kendrick is the Executive Director of Rust Belt Rising, a Midwest political training organization, as well as a professor at National Louis University in Chicago. Paul served in President Obama's White House and on his 2012 Wisconsin campaign. He was previously the Director of College Success at the Harlem Children's Zone. He is the co-author of Nine Days: The Race to Save Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life and Win the 1960 Election, a New York Times Book Review editor's pick that deals with political ethics and courage in the Kennedy/Nixon election. He previously co-authored Douglass and Lincoln: How a Revolutionary Black Leader and a Reluctant Liberator Struggled to End Slavery and Save the Union. You can follow him on Twitter at Paulkendrick84.

Kathryn Larson
Kathryn Larson is a Democratic candidate for the Idaho State Legislature in 2024. She is the founder of the management and coaching consulting firm Riley Thinks, and is a professional glassworker. Her extensive private sector experience includes roles with McKinsey, IndustryMasters, and The Regis Company. In 1998 she co-founded Granite Technologies where she developed one of the first web-based electronic performance support platforms.

Reena Ninan
Reena Ninan is a television journalist and entrepreneur. She is the founder of Good Trouble Productions, a media company focused on amplifying causes through producing, distributing, and hosting engaging content.  Reena created and hosts two top-rated podcasts, Ask Lisa: The Psychology of Parenting and HERO: The Hidden Economics of Remarkable Women. She has served as a foreign correspondent in the Middle East—reporting from Baghdad to Beirut to Jerusalem—as well as a White House Correspondent for ABC News.  She also anchored the CBS Weekend news in New York. Reena is most passionate about foreign affairs, female entrepreneurship, economic inclusion, mental health/wellness, and creating thriving communities.

Peyton Rollins
Peyton Rollins is a student in the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University. A native of South Carolina, Peyton is a press assistant for a Republican member of the US House of Representatives. Prior to his current role, Peyton interned in several Congressional offices and in the South Carolina governor’s office. He is also an SMPA Ambassador.

Notes - Spring 2024

The Project on Ethics in Political Communication sends regular notes - roughly weekly, more or less - with what we’re reading and what we’re watching for. Sign up to receive these updates in your email inbox.

May 31, 2024

What We’re Reading
Political Fictions

Joan Didion, like John dos Passos, is one of those authors I wish I had read earlier in life. Her prose is precise and her insights unflinching. Didion’s political essays, collected in Political Fictions, may be the best primer on American politics in 2024 that I’ve seen. Didion was talked into writing about politics for the New York Review of Books. The essays in Political Fictions cover the 1988 - 2000 presidential campaigns. Later essays in the magazine run up through Obama’s election in 2008.

In all of these essays Didion reveals the widening gap between what political elites tell ourselves and each other about politics, and what non-elites tell themselves and each other. As the gap got bigger over decades, it is unsurprising that ideologues more interested in confrontational political theater stepped into the void. Too often politics is seen as being in service of itself, even as most of the people working in it are trying do to do real good for real people. Her takes on Jesse Jackson in 1988, the Bill Clinton campaigns and presidency, and Bob Woodward will all sound familiar to anyone following the last decade in American politics.

What We’re Watching
Hot Takes about Democratic Institutions

Of course we have been watching the Trump verdict - it’s hard not to. Our attention is turning away from hot takes on what the verdict means for the 2024 election, and turning toward how partisans and pundits talk about democratic institutions in the wake of the verdict.

As Nate Cohen points out in the New York Times, no one is really sure what the electoral consequences of the convictions will be. As is often the case, my interest is more structural than it is episodic. We are watching to see if elected officials, candidates and talking heads use this as a moment to attack or strengthen democratic institutions. Many on the political right are attacking the verdict as an outcome, rather than on the merits of the case itself. For this group, the problem is the conclusion rather than the process. Similarly, many on the left are applauding the outcome as an outcome rather than applauding the argument or system in which the arguments were made. For both, the judiciary is proof of politics rather than a critical democratic institution.

We are watching to see who weighs in to support the judiciary as an institution, regardless of this one decision.

May 23, 2024

What We’re Reading
AI, again

Artificial intelligence is part of the conversation about the 2024 election. It may or may not impact the outcome in ways that may or may not matter. Academics who study campaigns and media effects aren’t nearly as certain about the impacts of technology and communication as pundits are. That we’re not sure what happens next is not a reason to ignore AI, so we’re trying to keep up.

Over the past week two articles caught our eye. The first is a New York Times piece in which the Times programmed partisan chatbots with alarming results. The second is a Washington Post conversation that includes links to pieces in other outlets, about AI in the 2024 election.

The Times’ headline sums up their article well: “See How Easily A.I. Chatbots Can Be Taught to Spew Disinformation.” With just a bit of work, chatbots can be trained to sound like regular social media posts that generate alarming and sometimes nonsensical hot takes. The conversation and links to other pieces in the Washington Post add depth and nuance to the AI discussion. Both are worth checking out.

What We’re Watching
Blood and Responses

Yesterday a package containing two vials of blood was left at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC. According to CBS News,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. "It is concerning...we are going to do what we consistently have done from here, [to] condemn any political violence, threats or intimidation that has no place in any community and certainly in our political discourse."“ A strong, clear message against political threats and violence.

According to the New York Post, RNC Chair Michael Whatley said, “This revolting attack comes on the heels of pro-Hamas protestors violently demonstrating on college campuses and deranged Biden supporters physically attacking our campaign volunteers for supporting President Trump.” That rhetoric is unhelpful. It assumes those who delivered the package are connected to those protesting university investment policies and is typical of Biden supporters. Rather than condemn violence, the statement says political opponents are violent. The better response is one that condemns political threats and political violence - from anyone, for whatever reason.

We are watching to see which political pundits and candidates take the opportunity to speak out against threats and violence, and which use rhetoric that only makes things worse.

May 15, 2024

What We’re Reading
A Former Texas School Board Member Speaks Out

The Texas Tribune has an in depth piece on Courtney Gore, a conservative former school board member in Granbury, Texas. According to the Tribune, Gore was persuaded to run to preserve Christian values that were reportedly under assault in the schools in the town of about 10,000 people just under an hour from Ft. Worth. Gore won.

But after taking office and examining hundreds of pages of curriculum, Gore was shocked by what she found — and didn’t find.

The pervasive indoctrination she had railed against simply did not exist…Instead, Gore found the materials taught children “how to be a good friend, a good human.”

Gore reported what she found, for which she was attacked by partisans who accused her of not following the party line. She has since endorsed the person she beat to win her school board seat, and has become part of a group of Republicans pushing back against what they see as a focus on divisive rhetoric and “administering purity tests.”

The Tribune piece and Gore’s experience demonstrate the danger of demagoguery over governing, and the power one person can have to walk away from the nonsense and still passionately argue for strong partisan views.

What We’re Watching
Debates?

This morning brought news of possible debates between president Biden and former president Trump. At this point it feels more like the promised cage match between Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk than something real, but one never knows.

The academic literature on the impact of debates generally finds that debates do little to change who people plan to vote for. There may be other effects (enthusiasm for the candidates for example). But generally speaking, while a debate may result in a temporary bounce or dip for a candidate in the polls, the effect is fleeting. Debates can introduce candidates to voters who might not have been paying attention to the campaign, but the list of people who don’t already have strong opinions about Biden and Trump is pretty short.

Serious debates about policy differences - the bi-partisan immigration deal the Senate passed, tax policy, what to do about the conflict in Gaza, and so on - would be a welcome addition to the summer and fall. Unfortunately at this point it sounds more like sixth graders saying they want to meet behind the swings in the playground after school than a promise of reasoned dialogue. We’re watching to see if we will happily be proven wrong.

April 30, 2024

What We’re Reading
Student Protests

This week we’re watching and reading about student protests. More specifically, I am watching them from my window on the fourth floor of the Media and Public Affairs building at the George Washington University and I am reading about them in our student newspaper, The Hatchet.

The protests at GW and around the country raise a number of strategic and political questions. They are case studies in collective action, in political pressure, local policing, and more. They also raise several ethical questions.

These questions include:

• The ethics of outside groups using students and universities to advance their political agendas. This happens all of the time with groups like College Republicans and Young Democrats. Those organizations have clear ties to national organizations, and there is nothing wrong with national groups working with student groups. What about other national groups that don’t disclose their involvement or that use college campuses as strategic tools? Is it OK as long as the students believe in what they’re doing? Only OK if it’s disclosed? Is it always unethical? Or is there another answer?

• The ethics of speech. Free speech has a long and complicated history on college campuses. Where are the lines on student speech? Clear hate speech - “death to XXXX” is clearly out of bounds. Where are lines around speech that makes people uncomfortable or possibly threatened, even if they are not meant as such?

• The ethics of using protest images for political campaigns. Republican candidates (and maybe some Democrats) will almost certainly use images of protests in campaign mail and ads this summer and fall. Those images will almost certainly be the most dramatic ones possible, and will be used to paint a picture of chaos on college campuses. The protests at GW are outside of my office window. There have been a few chaotic moments, but otherwise it’s peaceful and calm. What are the ethics of using accurate, if unrepresentative, images from a single event at a single campus to for political gain in another state?

  What We’re Watching
  Final Exam

  Earlier today I emailed the below final exam question to my political communication ethics students. I am eager to read their answers.

  Your work in the School of Media and Public Affairs has attracted the attention of a number of political professionals. They are especially interested in your ability to bring theory to bear on practice – you aren’t so caught up in what ought to happen that you forget about what’s going on around you, and you aren’t so caught up in the trendy tactic that you don’t know how to think about politics and the polity.

  After weighing a number of offers from prestigious consulting firms and high profile candidates, you agree to sign on to a candidate who reflects your priorities and who you think can win. It’s a dream gig.

  You sign a lease, finally buy a new laptop and get ready to dive in.

  This is a general election campaign. Your candidate is more or less liked, but not loved. Your opponent is loved by some, and loathed by some. Your candidate attracts ambivalence, no one is ambivalent about your opponent. On your first day, a wealthy donor shows up and says they will spend well into seven figures to fund a stealth campaign for a write-in campaign that will likely (though not certainly) pull votes from your opponent. You are handed the campaign. Your job is to run a write in campaign for a member of the opposing party (if you’re a Republican you’re asking voters to write in a different Democrat for the office, if you’re a Democrat you’re asking voters to write in a different Republican).

  No one thinks the write-in can win. The person being written-in is a prominent partisan who hasn’t been told of the effort. The goal is to draw votes away from your opponent. Attracting votes to your candidate is someone else’s job. Your job is to run a losing campaign for a member of the opposition party to increase the chances the candidate you support will win. Your effort’s funding is secret. There can be no coordination among campaigns. This must look like a truly independent, if Quixotic, effort to succeed.

  Do you keep the gig or do you quit? Why or why not?

April 23, 2024

What We’re Reading
Violent Rhetoric and Political Violence

A 2018 Politico headline summed it up well: Yes, Political Rhetoric Can Incite Violence. The piece’s author, Prof. Nathan P. Kalmoe of Louisiana State University cited a study in which he found “…mild violent metaphors multiply support for political violence among aggressive citizens, especially among young adults.” Other studies have come to similar conclusions that in some cases violent political rhetoric can lead to political violence.

US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) recently encouraged people to “take matters into their own hands” when confronting pro- Palestine protesters. In Arizona, Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake said supporters should “strap on a Glock.” And of course former President Trump has a long history of violent rhetoric.

In calmer political times it might not matter. Politicians have long used violent imagery to make their case. But we are not in calm political times. That Civil War, the dystopian movie about America’s immediate political future, led the box office its opening weekend says it all.

There are real and serious disagreements about important issues. Candidates, elected officials and pundits need to find ways to talk about their differences on these issues without promoting violence.

What We’re Watching
Will Governing be Punished?

At the end of last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance several important bills. The legislation is now in the Democratic controlled US Senate, where it will likely pass. President Biden will then sign the package into law. One of the bills, aid to help Ukraine fight Putin’s invasion, passed 311-112. All 112 of the ‘no’ votes were Republicans, as were 101 of the yes votes. The bill passed with a minority of the majority.

In other words, Speaker Johnson governed. Politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. Given Democratic control of the Senate and White House, and a deeply divided Republican conference, the Speaker was never going to get everything he wanted. His options were to get what he could get and promote US national security and the security of our allies, or he could get nothing thereby weakening national security and hurting our allies. The Speaker chose the former, he did the possible.

As a result, he may lose his job. US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told Fox that “Mike Johnson’s Speakership is over.” She and her supporters would rather make a point than make policy. For them, the art of the possible comes second to partisan purity. We are watching to see if Rep. Greene and her allies will punish the Speaker for doing his job when Congress returns from its latest break.

April 16, 2024

What We’re Reading
Media Coverage of Political Violence

Peaceful protest and voting are important ways in which Americans participate in the political process. Violent protest and electoral violence have also been with us from the start - the US was founded after a revolution, violence isn’t new here. Political violence is also newsworthy. It is out of the norm, and makes for much better visuals than people calmly talking around a table or quietly waiting in line to vote.

A challenge is that media coverage of political violence can normalize it. News media and pop culture can help determine what is socially acceptable. Some research finds that if news media cover civic or electoral violence as outside of the norm, viewers may see it as atypical. But when the coverage treats the violence as normal or expected, it may become normal and acceptable.

Reports of support for political violence may be overstated, but there is a deep academic literature on media normalizing far right, populist messages. The research on media effects on violence is mixed, but some research concludes “…the average overall size of the effect is large enough to place it in the category of known threats to public health.” How media portray violence certainly worth paying attention to.

Pop culture has helped normalize designated drivers, and a lot of people have written about the impact of the television series Will & Grace on public attitudes toward homosexuality. The logic of pop culture making something normal also applies to electoral violence. For example, Kristen Grimm, founder of Spitfire Strategies, recently wrote “…we want to de-normalize violence in civic spaces. This movie [Civil War] might do the exact opposite.”

The challenge for news organizations is how to cover civic violence responsibly, without exacerbating that violence.

What We’re Watching
Trump Trials

Of course we’re watching the Trump trials. They are important politically and socially, and they make great drama. In addition to the political theater and speculation about the impact on Trump’s electoral chances, we’re watching to see if the media coverage reinforces or undermines democratic norms.

Making the trials grand theater, about Trump raising money and selling t-shirts, might make for good ratings, but it probably makes for bad democratic discourse. The media have a chance to reinforce and strengthen democratic norms in their coverage of the Trump trials. They can also blow it, and prove to the American people that good ratings matter more than democratic ideals. We’re watching and hoping for the former.

April 9, 2024

What We’re Reading
Semi Partisan Media

The Courier news organization is back in the press. The outlet “is a pro-democracy news network that builds a more informed, engaged, and representative America by reaching audiences where they are online with factual, values-driven news and analysis.” The company has 10 local outlets, with an 11th on the way. The outlets focus on local news and have a liberal perspective. For example, the Cardinal and Pine - “North Carolina News You Can Use” - has headlines praising Biden administration accomplishments and criticizing “far right groups." It also has features on NC State basketball and the best bowling alley in North Carolina.

Local news needs all the help it can get. Local news is good for democracy, and also in a lot of trouble. Anything that helps local news seems like a good idea.

But.

Notus, which is run by the Allbittron Journalism Institute, writes that “key facts about Cardinal & Pine and its parent company, Courier Newsroom, go undisclosed. Courier does not disclose that the newsroom is run primarily by former Democratic operatives…It has received funding from groups like the pro-abortion rights Planned Parenthood, which gave $250,000 to Courier Newsroom between June 2021 and June 2022, the year it was promoting content about what the election means for abortion access.” The Courier doesn’t hide its bias, but it also doesn’t fully disclose its funding and politics.

As Notus notes, the outlet “is testing the limits of what a newsroom can be.”

What We’re Watching
Incentives

One of my go-to lines when talking about politics is that people behave their incentives. If scaring the bejeebers out of people raises more money than less alarming ways, then campaigns will send emails that say the world will end at midnight unless you send them $7. If primary voters, who decide a lot of elections, punish elected officials for working across the aisle, then elected officials will be less likely to work across the aisle.

The question, then, is what incentives candidates and elected officials have to behave ethically.

This Friday I will be talking to US Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) about the incentives to be ethical. I have also asked half a dozen others active in politics to offer their written perspectives. You can register for Friday’s conversation here, and I will share the complete packet next week.

April 2, 2024

What We’re Reading
Rhetoric and the State of Congress

Last week the Congressional Management Foundation released its State of Congress 2024 report. Congress, it will come as no surprise to anyone, is broken.

According to the report, two thirds of Democratic staffers and three quarters of Republicans, frequently get "direct insulting or threatening messages or communications." Getting marched on and shouted at comes with the job in politics. Like many who have served in senior staff positions in Congress, I’ve gotten death threats and hate mail. But those numbers have gone way up in recent years. In 2016 the US Capitol Police investigated 902 threatening messages, according to The Hill. In 2017, one year later and a year into Trump’s first term, the US Capitol Police reported nearly 4,000 threats. In 2023, that number is down to 8,000 from its 2021 high of nearly 10,000. In 2016 the US Capitol Police investigated 902 threats. In 2021 the number was 9,625. In 2023, the number was 8,008.

The threats usually come from the outside. But the awful rhetoric too often comes from Congress itself. More than four in ten Republican staffers, and half of Democrats, said the are "considering leaving Congress due to heated rhetoric from the other party.” More alarmingly, three in five Republican staff “are considering leaving Congress due to ‘heated rhetoric from my party.’” The same is true for 16% of Democrats.

More Republican staff say that they are considering leaving their jobs because of what fellow Republicans say than because of what Democrats say.

Over the top partisan political rhetoric, especially on the political right, encourages similar rhetoric from outside the halls of Congress. That rhetoric encourages threats to the lives of elected officials and their staffs. That rhetoric is driving staff - especially Republican staff - out of public service. Rhetoric has consequences for lives, livelihoods, and our democracy.

(As a matter of full disclosure, I have given a couple of management training talks for the Congressional Management Foundation).

What We’re Watching
Campaign Money

The first quarter of 2024 is officially over. Candidate and campaign reports for the first quarter are due on April 15 (y’up, the Ides of March). Over the next two weeks we will be watching to see who is funding whom. We will also be be watching to see who is using the reports to score political points. Political money as, and as tool of, political speech can have a lot to say.

March 27, 2024

Save the date
Incentives for Politicians and Elected Officials to be Ethical

An interview with US Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA), former co-chair Congressional Modernization Committee
Friday, April 12
8:30 - 9:00am
Zoom
Details and registration here

What We’re Reading
AI Continued

AI continues to grab political headlines. Punchbowl News, a must-read daily email for Congress watchers, just launched AI Impact. The biweekly series includes a podcast and will touch on a range of issues. Yesterday Politico published its own analysis of AI with two stories - one on policy and one on a “little known AI group that got $660 million.” Last night I moderated a conversation on AI and campaigns with a leading Republican and Democratic consultant and a student in my political communications ethics course. I’m confident that more big think AI pieces will be published between the time when I hit ‘send’ on this missive and when you read it.

The more I learn about predictive and generative AI, and the more I talk to campaign professionals about how they are using it, the more convinced I am that the new questions AI raises are really very old questions. AI is very good at very quickly figuring out what people want to hear, and then giving them something that sounds compelling regardless of whether or not it is true or good. The former is rooted in Aristotle, and the latter is basically Plato’s critique of the sophists. Like everyone else, I’m trying to keep up with AI news and developments. And as I read the latest, Plato’s Phaedrus is never far out of reach.

What We’re Watching
NBC, McDaniel and the Political Entertainment Complex

As Politico pointed out this morning, former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel’s brief stint at NBC paid her about $500 every second she was on air. The network rightly got slammed - often by its own on air talent - for hiring a political operative whose last gig included trying to invalidate a democratic election. I understand NBC’s logic. McDaniel might have attracted new viewers and could have helped pay the bills, something media outlets are struggling to do. But politics as entertainment by other means diminishes both politics and entertainment. Smart and engaging analysis doesn’t have to be done by political celebrities looking for a platform and steady paid speaking gigs. I know plenty of smart political analysts who can turn a clever phrase and look good on TV.

We are watching to see if more media outlets (not just broadcast) refuse to pay people who tried to subvert democracy. We are also watching to see if they bring on more political scientists, communication scholars or ethicists (you know how to reach me).

March 11, 2024

What We’re Reading
AI and Election Information

While much of the public attention on AI in politics is focused on candidates, Politico is reporting on threats to elections themselves. It is relatively easy to generate fake emails, calls or videos about elections (as the Biden campaign learned in New Hampshire). Voters who may be skeptical of digital or TV ads might not apply the same level of skepticism to messages that seem to come from trusted election sources. The results can include people trying to vote on the wrong day, at the wrong place, or not voting at all.

Such attempts aren’t new - automated phone calls (“robocalls”), phone banks and even direct mail lying about changes to election day, rules, or polling locations have been with us for a while. But AI puts these efforts into overdrive. As Politico wrote:

Election officials say they’re already used to battling misinformation…Fontes, the Arizona secretary of state, recalls a colleague calling AI “the same poison, it’s just in a different bottle.” But Fontes amends that: “I would say it’s the same poison, but this is a swimming pool.”

As I have argued elsewhere, the new threats posed by generative AI are really old threats but much, much more so.

In addition to the obvious threat of people acting on incorrect information or lies, AI enhanced election meddling can further decrease public trust across the board. Democracy cannot survive without a basic level of public trust. If voters aren’t sure they can believe anything they hear about politics, regardless of source or topic, then they might believe anything at all. If elections can’t be trusted, then why bother with democracy?

What We’re Watching
National League of Cities Meeting

The National League of Cities meets this week in Washington, DC. Cities remain one of the most politically productive, and least rhetorically destructive, political venues. Mayors have to solve problems their voters face every day - potholes, garbage, schools. Cities are also increasingly caught in national partisan battles over immigration, crime, minimum wage, and more. We will be watching to see if the public comments coming out of the meeting reinforce problem solving, or if those on whom we count to make our communities work get caught in national political theater.

Save the dates
Upcoming Events

Ethics in Political Communication: Navigating a Shifting Landscape From Digital Outreach to AI
Tuesday, March 26, 6:00 - 7:00pm
Streaming and limited live seating
Details and registration here
Sponsored by the The School of Media and Public Affairs and Campaigns & Elections

Incentives for Politicians and Elected Officials to be Ethical
With US Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA)
Friday, April 12, 8:30 - 9:00am
Zoom
Details and registration here

March 5, 2024

What We’re Reading
Civil Religion

March 5th is the anniversary of both the Boston Massacre and Stalin’s death. It is also Super Tuesday, which former President Trump and President Biden are likely to dominate. Do with that coincidence what you will. This Thursday the 7th is also President Biden’s State of the Union address, and Congress is likely to avoid a March 8th partial government shutdown - maybe.

All of which bring to mind the idea of “civil religion.” Popularized by Robert Bellah in a 1967 article in Daedalus, civil religion can be defined as the “collective effort to understand the American experience of self-government in light of higher truths and through reference to a shared heritage of beliefs, stories, ideas, symbols, and events.” (Carlson, 2017) Civil religion is a story about who we are as a nation or people. It’s a story we tell to others, and to ourselves, about who we are. It gives meaning to our political existence, something to which we can refer to know our political behavior is good or just.

The idea has a rich history that goes well beyond a few hundred words here - Philip Gorski’s American Covenant is a good overview.

What We’re Watching
Victory, Concession, and State of the Union Addresses

This will be a good week for fans of political speeches. Tuesday will bring victory and concession speeches from the campaign trail (not just presidential - keep on eye on California House and Senate races for example). Thursday is President Biden’s State of the Union Address.

I have argued elsewhere that a humble civil religion is a good grounding for American political rhetoric (and here and here). I hope that the Super Tuesday speeches and the State of the Union (and its response) on Thursday reinforce rather than undermine our shared national ideals. If “the people” are rhetorically constructed, if a nation is its story of itself, then those in politics have an obligation to tell a story that moves us toward our democratic ideals.

March 1, 2024

What We’re Reading
Sociopaths and Ethics

Last weekend, the New York Times ran an interview with a sociopath named Patric Gange. She told the interviewer, “I choose to follow those rules because I understand the benefits of this world...That is different from people who follow the rules because they have to, they should, they want to be a good person.” She asked why it should matter her motives for doing the right thing, as long as she does it.

It can be easy to say that we want our politicians and advocates to be good people (or at least reasonably good people). We want them to believe in democratic ideals and a moral arc that bends toward justice. We also want them to do good things - support individual rights and not promote political violence. But if the point is the action, why do motives matter? Is a well behaved sociopath preferable to an ill-behaved true believer?

What We’re Watching
Next week. All of it.

The next seven days will be quite the adventure in American politics. Tuesday March 5th is the anniversary of the Boston Massacre and “Super Tuesday.” Thursday the 7th is the State of the Union Address. And, if all goes to plan, Friday the 8th is the next budget deadline. Each will roll into the next, and the political pressure will build along the way.

We’re watching for how candidates respond to Tuesday, how both the President and Republican Representatives behave on Thursday, and what it all means for next Friday. It’s going to be quite the week.

February 20, 2024

What We’re Reading
Comms Case Study - Juul

Stat, a leading outlet covering the FDA, biopharma, health care and related issues, recently ran a piece on Juul’s efforts to win policymaker support. The piece is similar to one that ran in the Washington Post a couple years ago on Meta/Facebook’s attempt to curry favor in Washington.

The articles are glimpses into a world that many outside of DC rarely see, but a world that pays the bills for a lot of people in Washington (including me for more than a decade). These are what well-funded, well-organized advocacy campaigns look like. They try to set the agenda, shape how issues are defined and covered, and enlist a wide range of strategic messengers. Direct lobbying - hired advocates talking to lawmakers and staff - is part of the process. But only a part. The process includes federal rulemaking, earned media, grassroots and grass tops organizing, and more. Most of the money that goes into these campaigns is difficult, if not impossible, to trace and most of what they do is legal.

But legal isn’t always ethical. Which issues to which policymakers pay attention, how those issues are defined, and what results from those definitions all matter - in part because of what is not on the agenda, what is not talked about, and what it therefore left undone.

What We’re Watching
FEC Filings

The Federal Elections Commission has several important filing deadlines in the next several weeks. We will be watching to see which candidates and committees report who is donating to whom. You can’t tell everything about a campaign from FEC reports, but you can tell a lot.

February 8, 2024

What We’re Reading
Machiavelli

It is easy to read the last decade in American politics as a case study of Niccolo Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy.

More people talk about Machiavelli than have read his work, and most who have read his work did so because they were assigned The Prince in college. His lesser known, and arguably more important, Discourses is worth revisiting (or at least John McCormick’s 2001 American Political Science Review piece “Machiavellian Democracy: Controlling Elites with Ferocious Populism” is worth reading). McCormick argues that Machiavelli offers “a theory of democracy in which the populace selects the elites who will hold office but also constantly patrols them through extraelectoral institutions and practices, such as the tribunes of the people, public accusations, and popular appeals.”

In McCormick’s analysis, elites inevitably self-deal. A good republic is structured in such a way as to keep those elites in check and churning. That means elections, but also that the “people should despise and mistrust elites, and they should actively confront the injustice that elite governing inevitably entails.”

The question on the table for the Project on Ethics in Political Communication is “what, if any, ethical obligation do those in political communication have and to whom or what do they have them?” What if the answer is “none” - that the only obligation we have is to keep elites in check so they don’t completely wreck everything?

What We’re Watching
Immigration Reform Politics

A bipartisan immigration bill is failing in the US Senate as I type this. There are broadly speaking three reasons to oppose the bill: It’s too liberal, it’s too conservative, and it would help Biden in the fall. There are legislators in the first two camps - and a whole lot in the third.

The situation at the US - Mexico border is a mess that voters increasingly view as a crisis. One of the reasons we have a government is to clean up messes and resolve crises like this. The kinds of solutions the government comes up with depends on who is in power, so it is not surprising (or even necessarily always a bad thing) for partisans to put off solving a problem until the politics are more favorable for their side.

But policies can get lost in the politics - the politics can become an end in itself. When politics, gaming crises for electoral advantage, become the point people can get hurt. This is one such case. Among many other things, the situation along the US - Mexico border is a humanitarian crisis.

Ethical political communication advances causes or candidates that can do whatever your definition of good is. But at some point you have to do something, there is a time to stop campaigning and start governing.

We are watching to see if we’ve reached that point on immigration. We’re skeptical.

January 30, 2024

What We’re Reading
AI Ethics in Comms

Generative artificial intelligence - tools from companies like OpenAI, Google and others - is one of the many things that has candidates and election observers on edge this year. Advocates and observers have been failing to agree on a code of ethics for AI since at least 2018. Since GPT-3 exploded just over a year ago, a lot more people have tried.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is one of the many organizations suggesting rules for the ethical uses of AI in public relations and political communication. Several weeks ago, the PR ethics podcast Ethical Voices talked to two PRSA national leaders about the standards. In the political world, the American Association of Political Consultants issued a statement condemning the use of AI in political ads last spring.

The list of organizations making statements on the broader issue of AI includes private companies, interest groups, and everyone else from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to the United Nations. Do an online search for AI ethics and you get an alarmingly long list (better yet, ask OpenAI or Bard - each summarizes the lists reasonably well).

What We’re Watching
Regulating AI in Politics

Codes of ethics are important, but without enforcement mechanisms or other incentives to follow the rules, they have limited power. 

Various government agencies at various levels are trying to regulate the rapidly changing tool. The New York Times recently highlighted some state efforts. According to the Washington Post, the Federal Elections Commission is scheduled to weigh in by early summer.

AI goes far beyond political campaigns of course. The White House issued an executive order in November, there is a House Artificial Intelligence Caucus, and legislation is stacked like planes at La Guardia on an August afternoon. The Brennan Center has a helpful tracker for federal legislation and the National Council of State Legislatures has a state tracker. The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) offers a good global view and provides regular updates on AI.

As federal and state legislatures and regulators dive into a busy spring, we are watching to see what - if anything - they do about AI.

January 23, 2024

What We’re Reading
Consequentialism and Deontology

Two popular approaches to ethics are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism is a version of utilitarianism, which says the right thing to do is whatever provides the greatest good for the greatest number (think the trolley car problem, brilliantly explained on The Good Place). Consequentialism, as the name implies, says people should consider the consequences of their actions in deciding the most ethical path. Deontology (also brilliantly explained by The Good Place) says you should do the right thing, no matter the consequences. For Kant, that meant going so far as to let someone into the house who wanted to murder your brother who is hiding upstairs, because lying about whether or not your brother is home - even to someone who wants to kill him - is wrong.

When we argue about what candidates or campaign, courts or regulators, should do, we are often arguing about the difference between balancing possible outcomes and an absolute standard for action. Is a little bad now OK to prevent worse later? We can mostly agree that the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, but should the worse be the enemy of the bad?

How we view ethics, and how committed we are to our principles, should inform our actions.

What We’re Watching
Democrats in Republican Primaries

Punchbowl News flagged that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party is running an ad attacking a Republican primary candidate for not being close enough to Donald Trump. As Punchbowl put it, “The ad aims to create discord among the GOP base and stir up negative feelings toward [Republican candidate David] McCormick.”

This is not a new tactic. Democrats promoted Trump-aligned candidates in a number Republican primary races in 2022. Former US Senator Claire McCaskill bragged about spending $1.7 million to support a Republican primary candidate who she (correctly) thought she could beat in the general election.

Today’s Punchbowl News notes that some House Freedom Caucus members are supporting primary challengers to incumbent Republicans. These races could be places where Democrats pour more money and resources, hoping to drive wedges in the Republican electorate and nominate candidates who would easier to beat in a general election.

Such tactics may work - a high risk/high reward approach - but they raise ethical questions. Is it OK to meddle in another political party’s primary for your own electoral advantage? Does promoting ideas a political party finds reprehensible increase the reach of those ideas even if it hurt candidates? Is that inherently unethical, ethically gray, or just how the game is played? The answer may depend on how you feel about this week’s readings.

We’re watching to see what Democrats - and voters - do next.

January 16, 2024

What We’re Reading
Building Trust

Spitfire Strategies has a new report out on building trust. The report is aimed at civil society leaders, and comes from a progressive firm, but is worth checking out regardless of your politics or position. The report is also the subject of a piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, and the authors wrote about it for the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

The report is in the form of a workbook you can use with your organization. Not all the areas may fit your circumstance or politics, or make sense in your context, but odds are good parts of it will hit home and be helpful. The authors offer three pieces of advice: walk your talk; put your best foot forward; and don’t step in it.

As a matter of full disclosure, I’m one of the many who read early drafts of the report

What We’re Watching
State of the States

This is State of the State address season. Governors typically use these occasions to make the case for themselves and their state. These addresses are also an opportunity to promote democratic values and norms.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) opened his Jan. 11 address with the fall elections and made a case for Georgia’s success in contrast to Washington’s failure. His speech also highlighted bipartisan policy work in Georgia (in contrast to Washington) and focused on shared ideals. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) on the other hand opened his State of the State address by attacking President Biden by name and essentially delivering a presidential campaign address. Others, like New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy’s address delivered a more traditional mix of “we’re great” speeches that highlight issues favored by the governor’s party - partisan without poison - and that call out local leaders by name.

We’re watching to see how many governors follow Gov. Kemp’s lead and use the State of the State address as an opportunity both to brag about their success, and also to reinforce democratic norms and values.

Weekly Notes - Fall 2023

Every Tuesday the Project on Ethics in Political Communication emails a note about what we’re reading, and what we’re watching for. Those notes below, you can subscribe to receive them here.

December 12, 2023

What We’re Reading
Excitable Boy

Some readers may be old enough to remember, or at least remember hearing about, the TV show Queen for a Day. The show can be seen as proto-reality TV, a precursor to shows like The Apprentice. The host of The Apprentice of course went onto be US President for four years, and more recently said - and repeated - “that I want to be a dictator for one day.” Politics and reality TV have come full circle.

Pointing out that Trump isn’t kidding, and that we are in incredibly perilous times, is a cottage industry. Recent additions include the forthcoming issue of the The Atlantic detailing what a second Trump term could bring, Jonathan Karl’s new book Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the end of the Grand Old Party which adds more fuel to the fire about the dangers of Trump, and Robert Kagan’s piece for the Washington Post arguing a Trump dictatorship is “increasingly inevitable.” There are many more, and more are being added daily.

Some Republicans have dismissed Trump’s line as a joke and “typical Trump rhetoric.” It would be easy to agree and write all of this as hyperbole if so much of it hadn’t come from Trump and his allies, and if he hadn’t tried so much of it already. As Warren Zevon pointed out, dismissing someone as just an excitable boy can have dire consequences.

What We’re Watching
Republican Response

Democracies don’t exist automatically. They aren’t rocks we trip over or wells we fall into. Democracy is an idea that we argue into being and have to work to keep. That requires reaffirming the value of democracy, and speaking out against those who try to score political points by undermining it.

We will be watching to see if more Republicans join former US Rep. Liz Cheney in condemning those who say the US has too much democracy and needs a dictator, even if only for a day.

December 6, 2023

What We’re Reading
Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy

Last week Politico reported that key Congressional staffers working on AI are funded by Google, Microsoft and other large tech companies through a fellowship with the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). These fellows - all with PhDs or industry experience - are not alone. Organizations routinely fund fellows, studies, briefings, and more.

There is nothing inherently nefarious about any of this. In most cases this outside support provides expertise that Congress does not have and cannot afford. Such support is an example of what Richard L. Hall and Alan V. Deardorff wrote about in their landmark piece, Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy. Subject matter experts - and increasingly communications and campaign professionals - who work for advocacy groups, think tanks, trade associations, etc. are part of the fabric of governing. They provide expertise, time and attention Congressional offices don’t have. Rather than asking for favors, which is what many think of as lobbying, these people help an elected official achieve his or her goals - good tech policy, climate action, jobs, whatever.

Such activity predictably raises ethical questions, as this case study for UT Austin’s Center for Media Engagement explains. Time and attention are the two most precious commodities elected officials have. Outside experts help steer both. Those experts, of course, are paid for by people with policy preferences. In this way money helps determine what Congress pays attention to and what Congress does, and therefore what and who gets ignored. Not by definition unethical, but not entirely benign either.

What We’re Watching
Final Republican Debate

The Republican presidential candidates not named Donald Trump will gather for a final debate tonight. So far the campaign has a been a race to see who will finish is distant second to Trump. Given the spate of recent news, opinion and books we are watching to see if any of the candidates go directly after the threat a second Trump term would pose to democracy. It might not work, but nothing else is working either. If you’re going to lose you may as well go down doing the right thing.

November 28, 2023

What We’re Reading
Schedule F

This piece by Donald P. Moynihan in the New York Times puts a spotlight on a seemingly nerdy issue with potentially huge consequences. The issue is “Schedule F” - a classification of government employee that would make it easier for a President to fire professionals whose politics he disagreed with, and to stack federal agencies with political loyalists who may or may not be policy experts. Then-President Trump raised the issue late in his term. In September, the Biden administration proposed a rule making any change much more difficult, and offering more protection for civil servants. Outlets covering the debate include Government Executive and the Federal News Network.

Calls to make the federal workforce more beholden to politics are rooted in claims that the public can’t trust civil servants. Relentless attacks on federal scientists, economists, and others creates the argument for a significant change, and continues to undermine public trust in institutions on which we rely. Such attacks are profoundly dangerous. As Moynihan writes, “When values like transparency, legality, honesty, due process, fealty to the Constitution and competence are threatened in government offices, so too is our democracy.”

What We’re Watching
Congressional Retirements

Members of Congress are heading for the exits at record rates. Some of this is the normal churn of people running for other offices or deciding they would like to do something else for a living. Part of this year’s wave also almost certainly because Congress is even less functional than usual - and likely to get worse. Democrats and Republicans both cite the commitment to performance over governing in explaining their decision to spend time anywhere but Congress. As experienced and respected members of both parties retire, more experienced and respected members of both parties might follow them. No one wants to be the last adult chaperone on an eighth grade field trip to the nation’s capital.

Near-record Congressional retirements are one more symptom of the larger problem of attacks on, and a resulting declining trust in democratic institutions. As my first boss in Congress used to say, “you can’t burn down the house and expect to occupy it.”

We’re watching to see if elected officials, candidates and pundits stand up for Congress and other critical institutions, or if they will continue to pour gasoline on an already raging fire.

November 14, 2023

What We’re Reading
Supreme Court Ethics Rules

On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct. In the statement, the Court says it wants to “dispel” a “misunderstanding," and that the statement “represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.” As National Public Radio and others have reported, one criticism of the statement is that it doesn’t include an enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, a public statement that ethics matter, matters. If the Court is seen to be holding itself to a high standard, then public confidence in the Court may rebound. If, however, Justices continue to behave in ways that give the appearance of unethical behavior then confidence may fall even further.

What We’re Watching
Republican Response to Trump

In the midst of a week that includes marches supporting Israel (and expected counter protests), more federal budget drama in the House, another Republican candidate for president dropping out, a volcano in Iceland, and important political events in Spain, England, Argentina and elsewhere, it can be easy to overlook the Trump campaign’s increasingly authoritarian rhetoric. We are watching to see if more Republicans politicians or pundits publicly say that Trump has gone too far.

November 7, 2023

What We’re Reading
Trust in Elections and Vaccines

Brendan Nyhan recently posted two pieces on Bluesky that speak to the question of trust (drop me an email if you need a Bluesky code). The first, from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, reports on declining confidence in vaccines. The second, which Nyhan co-authored, is from the MIT Election and Data Science Lab on best practices and new areas of research for increasing trust in US elections.

The pieces speak to different issues, but share the underlying challenges of building and strengthening trust. The decline in public trust has been well documented. The articles highlighted by Nyhan demonstrate the results of that falling trust, and suggest ways to counter this decline.

What We’re Watching
The Republican Presidential Debate

With today’s elections in Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and elsewhere combined with the Trump trial, the ongoing rumble of the US House, the war in Gaza, and more, it can be easy to miss that five Republican presidential candidates are debating tomorrow night in Miami (without Trump, of course). We will be watching to see if any of the candidates try to break from the pack by reinforcing democratic norms, and going after those who continue to lie about the 2020 election. The anti-democratic lane is already pretty well occupied by Trump, the only possible way to pass him might be by increasing trust in democratic institutions and speaking to shared American values. We’re not optimistic, but we’re forever hopeful.

October 31, 2023

What We’re Reading
John zaller

Last week Shanto Iyengar was at the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University to receive the Robert M. Entman Award for Democracy and Political Communication. In answering a question, Iyengar referenced John Zaller, whose 1992 The Nature and Origin of Public Opinion is a landmark work in political science. This week we’re revisiting Zaller. In his 2112 essay, The Political Education of John Zaller (also here) Larry Bartels wrote, “The most common single theme, by far, in references to Zaller’s book— especially, it seems, in more recent references—is that mass opinion is shaped by elite discourse.” (Bartels notes, “what is most striking about this principal emphasis in the literature is how little it has to do with the evidence actually presented in Zaller’s book”).

Much of Zaller’s work, and the work that it inspired, examines the relationship(s) between elite rhetoric, media and public opinion. Those streams, once connected but distinct, are increasingly the same thing. The media are political elites, political elites are media, and the public consumes and contributes to both. It can be difficult to tell the cheesecake from the crust.

Zaller’s work, and the work of those who have built on it, are worth reviewing as we try to understand and improve the quality of political discourse.

What We’re Watching
The New Speaker

This is the first full week on the job for new Speaker of the House. Speaker Mike Johnson is largely unknown outside of (and even inside of) Washington, DC. He is facing political, policy and logistical challenges for which he has little training and with which he has little experience. How he handles the first few weeks on the job may define how his colleagues, the press and public view him. Those views may largely determine whether he succeeds or fails. As the saying goes, you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.

We are interested in how he approaches governing and trust building. He can build bridges and help forge policy, which will require building trust in Congress and will result in increased trust among the public, but may come at a political cost. Or he can keep conservatives in Congress happy and keep his job, which will come at the cost of policymaking and may result in even lower public faith in the institution.

October 24, 2023

What We’re Reading
Public Opinion - Congress

Public opinion of Congress is low, and likely falling. According to a recent SSRS survey for CNN, 74% of respondents disapprove the way Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, 64% disapprove of how Democrats are doing theirs. According to Gallup, in September - before the shutdown and Speaker fights - 82% of respondents disapproved of the way in which Congress was doing its job. Pew found that in September, 72% of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of Congress.

Elected officials and candidates have been telling the American people not to trust Congress, and for the past three weeks Congress has looked like a squirrel circus. It is unsurprising the public’s view of Congress is so low. It also makes it much, much more difficult to solve real problems facing real people, which means the public’s view of Congress may even fall further.

What We’re Watching
Trust Building

For the past few weeks we’ve been watching the Speaker’s race to see if healthy debate will strengthen or weaken public trust in their elected officials. The policy differences are real, and the stakes are high. Debate should be sharp and committed. But that debate need not drag down the institution. Temper tantrums, threats, and screaming matches are rarely persuasive (as Chairman Jordan has been recently reminded). We are watching to see if whomever emerges from the House Speaker elections uses the opportunity to rebuild trust in Congress.

October 17, 2023

What We’re Reading
Campaigns and AI

Commenting on AI has become its own niche industry. It seems that everyone, including us, has something to say.

We’re catching up on that reading this week with this collection of articles from Campaigns and Elections. The Project on Ethics in Political Communication has a pretty good list of articles as well (not great, but pretty good). In addition, we’re reading that the Democratic email fundraising firm Authentic announced a tentative agreement with its union about the use of AI; as the firm’s founder wrote on LinkedIn: “AI is going to transform the future of work whether we want it to or not. If we're going to do it ethically we have to give those most impacted by it a seat at the table.” Meanwhile, Politico reports that NY City Mayor Eric Adams is using AI to make it sound like he can speak a variety of languages.

We are also continuing to read political philosophy and the history of the digital future to keep a level head about what might happen next.

Join me on Thursday at 6pm for a conversation about AI and the 2024 campaign. I’ll be talking to a bipartisan panel of political professionals about what’s now and what’s next. The event is cosponsored by the School of Media and Public Affairs and Campaigns & Elections. There is limited seating in SMPA, and the conversation will also be livestreamed. Details are here.

What We’re Watching
The Speaker

Last week we wrote that we were watching the election of a new Speaker of the House. We predicted that “it will not be a quick or painless process” and it looks we were right. We hoped that the process would demonstrate the best of what political debate could be, and that it would strengthen the institution. We also feared it likely would not.

We’re still watching and waiting.

October 11, 2023

What We’re Reading
Alexander Hamilton - More than a song and dance man

First and foremost our thoughts are with the victims of the “trail of terror” in Gaza. Hopefully the House can elect as Speaker today or tomorrow, and the US can act.

Until the Republicans in the House agree on the rules for electing a new Speaker, and then elect a speaker under those rules, the US limited in what it can do. The longer our domestic political drama drags on, the weaker and less stable the US looks (and is), which diminishes our position even further.

All of which bring to mind this week’s readings: Federalist One, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1787 and the 2021 book Fears of a Setting Sun by Dennis C. Rasmussen. In the first Federalist Paper, Hamilton wrote:

Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

In his examination of the “disillusionment” of the architects of the American experiment, Rasmussen notes that "Hamilton was among the most disappointed in the national charter even at the outset.” (p.61) In 1802, Hamilton called the Constitution a “frail and worthless fabric.” (p. 97) Hamilton was not alone - as Rasmussen writes, “Whatever sense of hope the founders may have felt at the new government’s birth, almost none of them carried that optimism to their graves.” (p. 2)

Yet here we are, well more than 200 years later. For two centuries we have lurched, churned, argued, sometimes fought, and against the predictions of most of those who built our system, we have persevered.

What We’re Watching
The Speaker

Like most observers, we’re watching to see if the Republican members of the US House can figure out how to hold an election for the vacant Speaker role, and then who to elect. Odds are good it will not be a quick or painless process. As Punchbowl News put it this morning,

We’ll note this is as discombobulated and disorganized as the House GOP conference has been for more than two decades. They’re leaderless, angry and upset over how they got here and worried about what’s next. There’s backstabbing, bad blood and mistrust.

Somewhere Alexander Hamilton is shouting “I told you so!”

We are watching to see if House Republicans can rise to the moment. Fierce political battles can be good things - they can produce better policies and stronger institutions than quietly going along to get along can. But bitter battles can also stymie policy, weaken institutions and decrease public trust in Congress even further.

We are watching to see if Republicans prove Hamilton and the other architects of our republic wrong again, or if Hamilton and his colleagues will finally be proven right.

October 3, 2023

What We’re Reading
Trust Continued

Last week’s needless budget drama, and the drama to come, has kept my focus on trust. Three pieces are worth reading together:

First is this interview that Danielle Allen did with Discourse Magazine in 2020. As Allen says:

the healthy functioning of the institutions of liberalism depends on both a willingness of participants to prove their trustworthiness to others and the capacity of a society to build and sustain trust among its members.

Second is this morning update from Punchbowl News talking about what comes next for the budget after the last minute drama last weekend. They write, in part:
”McCarthy’s actions further added to the erosion of trust that began when he walked away from the bipartisan debt limit agreement…” and “People have a lot of ambivalence because they don’t trust [McCarthy],” one Democratic aide told us.

Finally, I make the trust case in this piece for Smerconish.com: Trust is Collateral Damage of Contemporary Politics.

What We’re Watching
The Speaker, the Budget and Following Up

Over the next 40 days Congress has an opportunity to build trust in the institution by returning to something approaching reasonable budget debates. At the same time, as I’m hitting “send” on this email, the House is deciding whether or not Speaker Kevin McCarthy will keep his post.

Debates over how much money Congress should spend, where they should spend it, and where that money should come from, are among the most important debates Congress can have. Leadership votes can be healthy for a democracy. People in power should be held accountable.

The question is the tone and tenor of those debates. Debates that are fierce and fair, and remain focused on addressing challenges families face every day, can help restore faith in Congress (maybe). If the debates are more ranting than reasoning then trust may continue to erode. Suggesting that someone is not fit for a position leading a democratic body because they believe in working with members of a legitimate opposition party is counter to democratic governance.

Last week we said we were watching to see how many Democrats would call on Senator Bob Menendez to resign. The answer is a lot, including more than half of his Democratic colleagues in the US Senate. We were also watching to see whether or not Republicans will repudiate US Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) for a homophobic rant in which in he accused the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of treason and called for his hanging. So far we have not seen any.

September 26, 2023

What We’re Reading
Online Threats and Trust Continued

Another week of stories about escalating threats against people studying online mis- and disinformation. This piece from the front page of the Sunday Washington Post explains the situation well. As the Post writes:

“…escalating campaign — led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress and state government — has cast a pall over programs that study not just political falsehoods but also the quality of medical information online.”

Politically motivated attacks on researchers and those who fund them means critical research slows or stops altogether. In addition, as the former head of trust and safety at was then Twitter wrote last week, the lives of those trying to ensure a safe and accurate public square are often threatened. Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, recently wrote in Lawfare that:

“…the events of Jan. 6—and the role of false claims of voter fraud in motivating and justifying those events and other efforts to overturn the 2020 election—are deeply connected to the modern attacks on disinformation researchers like myself.” 

A consequence of these attacks is declining public trust in civil society institutions on which we rely.

What We’re Watching
Congressional Bad Behavior and a Republican Debate

In addition to House leadership and federal funding drama, we are watching both the Republican presidential candidate debate and the responses to appalling behavior by members of Congress.

We are watching the Republican presidential candidate debate on Wednesday evening. The question, as always, is whether or not the candidates will use the opportunity to build trust in elections and democratic institutions. The stakes are high, and policy differences real, the debate should be pointed and serious. But political points should not be scored at the expense of already shaky faith in democratic institutions.

We are also watching to see if more Democrats will join the call for Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to step down after being indicted on corruption charges. So far most of the New Jersey delegation, along with high profile Democrats in the House and Senate, are urging the Senator to step aside. US Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) announced he will primary Sen. Menendez because of the indictment. In addition, we are watching to see whether or not Republicans will repudiate US Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) for a homophobic rant in which in he accused the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of treason and called for his hanging. His weekly newsletter has come under scrutiny in the past for linking to an anti-Semitic website. Senator Menendez and Representative Gosar’s actions are beneath the standards to which we should hold our elected officials accountable.

september 19, 2023
WhatS We’re Reading
Online Threats

Threats against researchers and public officials are up. This is especially true on social media, where loud and angry voices threaten violence to quiet those who report findings they would rather not hear, or express positions with which they disagree. This harrowing piece by Yoel Roth, the former head of trust and safety at Twitter (now X), is only one example of what many in academia, public health, elected office, and others face.

“Bit by bit, hearing by hearing, these campaigns are systematically eroding hard-won improvements in the safety and integrity of online platforms — with the individuals doing this work bearing the most direct costs.”

Death threats, lawsuits, congressional subpoenas, and harassment stifle debate. Democracy depends on debate. No debate, no democracy.

What We’re Watching
Federal Budget and Shutdown

A lot of political attention this week will be focused on the possibility (probability) of a government shutdown because Congress fails to pass a budget or a stop-gap spending bill before the federal fiscal year ends at midnight on September 30. Much of the coverage about the federal budget has focused on internal politics - does Speaker McCarthy have the votes, does a deal cost him his Speakership, does this strengthen or weaken the far right/moderates/Democrats in Congress, what does this mean for 2024, and so on. Little, however, has been said about the impact on Congress as an institution.

The political logic of shutdown showdowns is pretty simple: You want to be seen doing every last thing you can until the very last moment to fight for whatever you told your voters you’d fight for. You never get punished politically for fighting to the last, but you could be punished for cutting a deal early, especially if that deal involves members of the opposing party.

These incentives run counter to good governance. Constantly shutting down and restarting the federal government wastes taxpayer money and tells voters that Congress as an institution can’t work. Short-term and fleeting political gains come with long-term and lasting and democratic losses.

September 12

What We’re Reading
Facts and Incentives

Fact checkers have become commonplace in politics. These fact checking services often face two related challenges. Some research seemed to indicate the risk of a “backlash” effect (correcting people only hardens their opinions), and no one reads or cares about facts anyway.

More recent research by my colleague in the School of Media and Public Affairs at GW Ethan Porter and others has found fears of backlash are unwarranted. But getting people to pay attention to facts remains a problem. As Porter and and Prof. Matthew H. Graham of Temple University, put it in a new piece, “Fact-checks successfully persuade people to reject misinformation, but people who are exposed to misinformation rarely read fact-checks.” Porter and Graham appear to found ways to get people read those fact checks: social pressure, appeals to civic duty and micro-payments. Facts can be made to matter, assuming the right incentives are applied.

Accusations of partisanship continue to swarm fact checkers, a different challenge for a different day.

What We’re Watching
The House Returns - Build or Burn Trust?

The US House of Representatives returns today after an extended break. There is a lot on their agenda. The Farm Bill is up, the government’s fiscal year ends at midnight on September 30th, Congress needs to wrap its head around AI, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, COVID cases are rising, and more. Senate leaders concede that the Farm Bill won’t get done before the end of the month. A government shutdown is on the table, followed by a continuing resolution (CR) that will allow government funding to limp along. Republicans will likely continue investigating President Biden’s son and going after academics researching online disinformation.

My interest here is less in what Congress takes up, than it is in how they take it up. Trust in public institutions is collapsing. One reason is because members of Congress keep telling us not to trust those institutions. In addition to going after specific policies and people, many go attack the idea of Congress, the judiciary, higher education, elections, public health, and more. Voters are starting to believe them, and are losing faith in the institutions on which our democracy relies.

We will be watching to see how Congress frames issues and approaches problems - will they do it in ways that strengthen the public institutions on which we rely, or in ways that continue to weaken them? Will Congress work to build public trust, or continue to burn it?

September 5th

What We’re Reading
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Political Campaigns

The role of generative AI in campaigns and its impacts on politics will be a consistent source of conversation over the next 15 months. The Project is keeping a running list of articles we see on the topic. I’ve also written about the subject for Media Ethics magazine and The Hill (terrible headline - my fault - but maybe some good ideas in the piece).

One recent interesting take is from The Economist, it’s behind a paywall, worth tracking down if you can. A key argument comes from Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan who notes the data on “deep fakes” making a difference in campaigns is slim (at best), and that campaigns were swamps of nonsense before social media and AI.

Send me any articles on AI and elections you think are worth sharing.

What We’re Watching
Impeachment

Republicans in Congress have been talking about impeaching President Biden almost from the moment he took office. In May of this year, US Rep. Posey (R-FL) filed a resolution calling for Biden’s impeachment over his administration’s handling of the US - Mexico border. On August 11, US Rep. Steube (R-FL) also filed articles of impeachment. Even more recently, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said he is pursuing an impeachment inquiry, according to CNN.

Most of the news around the efforts have focused on the politics. But on Meet the Press, New Hampshire’s Republican Governor, Chris Sununu told Chuck Todd that impeachments are bad for the country, and that the nation has more pressing matters on which it should focus. The Governor noted that if the accusations turn out to be true, they could be worth acting on, but that impeachment is a serious thing, regardless of who benefits politically.

There’s an ethical balance here. On one hand, we need to hold our elected officials accountable. One could make the case that a President is so awful that anything that could get rid of them is worth trying. On the other hand, if every disagreement is cause of impeachment then the sanction loses its force. Being a member of the opposing political party, and holding views you think are awful (or worse) should not be a reason to turn the sanction dial to 11. Similarly, we should even hold those with whom we agree to account if they have committed impeachable offenses - political agreement cannot be an excuse for ethical amnesty.

We’re watching to see which way the rhetoric goes.

Ethics, AI, and Politics - Reading List

Credit Prompart

We are developing a list of resources and readings about ethics, AI and political communication. Below is some of what we’ve found so far. Please send me readings, podcasts, videos, whatever you’ve got that seems relevant and interesting, and we’ll keep adding to this list.

ChatGPT, ethics and political campaigns - Project on Ethics in Political Communication conversation with Prof. Dave Karpf, strategic consultant Zainab Chaudary, and GW student Yvonne Liccione.

A former student of mine named Jessica Nix, who is now a graduate student at Columbia University, asked ChatGPT about the ethics of using ChatGPT in campaigns. Here’s what it said.

ChatGPT is helping draft legislation - Washington Post

Political biases in ChatGPT, tweaking AI to generate bias - Rozado’s Visual Analytics

The right’s new culture-war target: ‘Woke AI’: ChatGPT and Bing are trying to stay out of politics — and failing - The Washington Post

Transforming the communication between citizens and government through AI-guided chatbots - Government Information Quarterly

AI/ChatGPT Lobbying - Nathan E. Sanders and Bruce Schneier - Washington Post

What AI Tools Like ChatGPT Mean for Political Consultants - Campaigns & Elections

It’s 2023. Consultants, Welcome to the Machine - Campaigns & Elections

The team tested how ChatGPT could be useful for Democracy Technologies - Democracy Technologies

How ChatGPT-3 Will Transform Politics (Probably For the Worse) - Micah L. Sifry, The Connector

ChatGPT is the future of politics - Conservative Home (UK)

Rep. Jake Auchincloss uses ChatGPT artificial intelligence to write House speech - WBZ

ChatGPT/Bing 2024: AI is better than no intelligence - Project director Peter Loge in The Hill

Disinformation Researchers Raise Alarms About A.I. Chatbots - New York Times

ChatGPT: Use of AI chatbot in Congress and court rooms raises ethical questions - France24

As A.I. Booms, Lawmakers Struggle to Understand the Technology - New York Times

How ChatGPT Will Strain a Political System in Peril - The New Yorker

AI’s Powers of Political Persuasion - Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence

Rise of the Chatbot: Alabama lawmakers confront questions about artificial intelligence - AL.com

Progressive Tech Investors Want AI Offerings For Campaigns - Campaigns & Elections

AI Goes to K Street: ChatGPT Turns Lobbyist

Automated influence campaigns could spell trouble for society - Edd Gent, IEEE Spectrum

How Political Campaigns Can Benefit from ChatGPT - BASK Insights (political consulting firm)

A Congressman Goes to A.I. School - HardFork Podcast

PoliScribe uses AI to draft messages and letters for Members of Congess - PoliScribe company website

Will ChatGPT Influence the 2024 Election? - Hugh Jones in Newsweek

Lieu's ChatGPT resolution seeks better understanding of AI - US Rep. Ted Lieu
”That resolution, while introduced by Lieu, wasn’t written by him, nor by a member of his staff. Rather, it was written by ChatGPT, “ - Office of Rep. Lieu

Conservatives Aim to Build a Chatbot of their Own - The New York Times

A Campaign Aide Didn’t Write That Email. A.I. Did. - The New York Times

How could ChatGPT and artificial intelligence change politics? - Deseret News

Can AI predict how you'll vote in the next election? - Science Daily

Meta won’t say if politicians can post AI-made fakes without warnings - Washington Post

Guidelines on Generative AI Tools - PR Council

AI and Political Campaigns: Let’s get real - Colin Delany Campaigns & Elections

GOP releases AI-generated ad to fearmonger over Biden’s reelection bid - ArsTechnica

Get Ready for the 2024 Deepfake Election - Wired

Writer, Adviser, Poet, Bot: How ChatGPT Could Transform Politics - Voice of America

The AI Political Campaign is Here - CNN

American Association of Political Consultants Board of Directors Unanimously Votes to Adopt New Policy for its Members - AAPC

How AI will transform the 2024 elections - Darrell West, the Brookings Institution

Political Consultants Embrace AI - But Will Clients Pay For It? - Campaigns & Elections

How AI Could Take Over Elections—And Undermine Democracy - Archon Fung and Lawrence Lessig, The Conversation (via Scientific American)

DeSantis campaign shares apparent AI-generated fake images of Trump and Fauci - NPR

Just Wait Until Trump is a Chatbot - Artificial intelligence is already showing up in political ads. Soon, it will completely change the nature of campaigning. Nathan E. Sanders and Bruce Schneier The Atlantic

Using AI to defend and win in politics - Higher Ground Labs

How AI Puts Elections at Risk — And the Needed Safeguards - Mekela Panditharatne and Noah Giansiracusa, Brennan Center

The Spring, 2023 issue of Media Ethics Magazine has several pieces on AI, ethics, politics and advocay.

A.I.’s Use in Elections Sets Off a Scramble for Guardrails - The New York Times

Scoop: Congress sets limits on staff ChatGPT use - Axios

The 2024 Presidential Race is the AI Election - Axios

How AI is Already Changing the 2024 Election - Axios

The AI race is on and strategists expect it will move quickly ahead of ‘24 - Campaigns & Elections

How an FEC deadlock is deterring a push to regulate AI in campaigns - The Hill

6 ways AI could make political campaigns even more deceptive - Fast Company

Six ways AI could change politics - Technology Review

The AI Revolution is Cancelled - Jordan Lieberman, Campaigns & Elections

FEC moves toward potentially regulating AI deepfakes in campaign ads - AP

Deepright - conservative AI campaign tool

Waiting for AI to transform politics? Don’t hold your breath - Micah L. Sifry

Agencies weigh the pros and cons of generative AI as political advertising grows - Digiday

Can AI images work for your campaign - Campaigns & Elections

Chat GPT breaks its own rules on political messages - Washington Post

AI will change American elections, but not in the obvious way - The Economist (paywall)

How worried should you be about AI disrupting elections? - The Economist (paywall)

AI Deepfakes in 2024 Election - Home Security Heroes (company)

Campaigns & Elections library of articles - Campaigns & Elections

Google to require disclosure of AI use in political ads - Politico

VoterVoice - Company

Using Generative AI for Human Rights Advocacy - Witness (advocacy organization)

Poll: Americans believe AI will hurt elections - Axios

The DeSantis Campaign Texted Me with a Large Language Model - Alan Johnson

Candidates, take this AI election pledge. Or 2024 might break us. - Geoffrey Fowler, Washington Post

Meta to Require Political Advertisers to Disclose Use of A.I. - New York Times

The New Political Ad Machine: Policy frameworks for political ads in an age of AI - Scott Babwah Brennen and Matt Perault, UNC - Chapel Hill

AI use in political campaigns raising red flags into 2024 election - ABC News

Is Argentina the First AI Election? - The New York Times

Meta bars political advertisers from using generative AI tools - Reuters

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Elections and Campaigns - National Conference of State Legislatures

How AI is Rewriting Political Advertising (interview about The New Political Ad Machine) - Shane Tews, American Enterprise Institute

Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads as federal legislation is pending - AP

(Updated 11/29/23)