A government must inspire credibility and trust indirectly through its actions. In the Fás affair our leaders have done the opposite, writes ELAINE BYRNE
PRESIDENT BARACK Obama had difficulty trying to convince the American public about his 10-year $900 billion plan for healthcare reform. For some, the provision of near-universal cover is the end of democracy and the prologue to communism. For others, “death panels” will now decide who lives and dies. The debate was infected by so much vitriol that former president Jimmy Carter suggested it was racially motivated.
Indeed in a town hall meeting in New Hampshire last month, Obama felt it necessary to define what a debate was. He asked Americans to debate with each other rather than over one another. To loud applause Obama pleaded, “Where we do disagree let’s disagree about things that are real, not these wild representations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.” Sound familiar?
This column is very fond of psychologist Prof Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia. Readers may remember how Haidt’s dog theory can tell us a lot about our voting patterns. His study found that liberals were more likely to have a dog that was “independent-minded and relates to its owner as a friend and equal”. Conservatives, on the other hand, preferred a dog that was “extremely loyal to its home and family, and doesn’t warm up quickly to strangers”.
Haidt has now gone further and identified three basic principles of moral psychology which help us to understand the process of how we come to determine what is right and wrong (see www.ted.com). By grasping how we make judgments on issues such as healthcare reform or the Lisbon Treaty, for example, politics can learn how best to morally persuade a cynical public on the merits of their argument.
Haidt’s work on how to disagree more constructively has the ear of leading Democrats. His approach on redefining how political debate is conducted was subtly used in the healthcare debate (see www.civilpolitics.org).
The first principle is intuitive primacy. In this case, judgment is based primarily on people’s gut instinct rather than any logical reasoning because of overwhelming anger. Justifiable outrage spills over into other unrelated issues which cloud perspective.
Moral thinking for social doing is the second principle. Here, we engage in moral thinking not to find the truth, but to find arguments or ammunition that support our intuitive judgments, so that we can defend ourselves if challenged.
Thirdly, morality binds and builds. If morality and politics are understood as team sports, then moral reasoning and rationalising becomes an us or them scenario. Logic and consistency are dispensed with and attacks on the motives and character of opponents become normalised. Moral teams tend to form around principles held to be sacred, like nationalism.
This is how Irish referendums have played out on abortion, divorce and Europe over the last 30 years. Public debate becomes polarised into black or white positions. For instance, the Lisbon Treaty spells the end for Irish democracy or that all those opposed to the European project are Trotskyites and far-right extremists. This classic Irish tradition of playing the man and not the ball becomes the de-facto approach for an anti-intellectual public discourse.
So, how can we change this moral psychology cycle and promote a more pluralist debate which respects and listens to alternative perspectives?
Haidt believes that the best way to morally persuade a sceptical public is to focus on indirect methods that change what people want to believe. One such way is to articulate a new political language which explicitly and implicitly inspires credibility and trust and thus creates momentum to instil public confidence in other government actions.
Let’s take a hypothetical example. For example, say a former director of a state body takes early retirement, not resignation, because of utter incompetence and mismanagement of public money. What is the best way to challenge public perceptions of government ethical stupor?
A €1 million golden handshake to the public servant is perhaps not the best approach. Neither are the attempts of a Taoiseach and a Minister for Justice to reassure the public on RTÉ's This Weekand The Saturday Viewradio programmes that any such "decision was taken in the best interests of Fás, in the best interests of the taxpayer".
Acknowledging that the reward for gross ineptitude was “in accordance with the legislation and guidelines” doesn’t cut it either. Incidentally, Department of Finance guidelines were referred to again and again during the John O’Donoghue expenses controversy. Apart from focusing on those who blindly follow the guidelines, perhaps we should be asking questions about the Department of Finance civil servants who introduced, monitored and implemented them.
The Government clearly decided that a legal and speedy resolution to the Rody Molloy incident trumped any morally fair-minded decision. This was also the approach adopted for the former financial regulator Pat Neary. The difficulty with haste, for the sake of short-term expediency, is that it establishes unintended precedents. The State, as the country’s biggest employer, has facilitated a perception that the principle of impunity now reigns. Who would run a business like that, never mind a country?
This angry Yes voter understands why anti-Government sentiment encourages and reinforces those voting No. But hold your fire.