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.
