Ethical politics: reality or illusion?

Daedalus, Fall 2007 by Bellah, Robert N

It would be well, before reflecting on whether the idea of ethical politics is a reality or an illusion, to consider briefly the meaning of ethical politics, or to put it bluntly, whether many Americans see any relation between ethics and politics.1 As we found out in our research for Habits of the Heart, most Americans think they know what they mean by politics (and by politicians), and it is not nice. Politics is the way some people get what they want by using undue influence, questionable tactics, even thinly veiled forms of bribery. If this widespread understanding of politics is correct, then the answer to the question my title asks is clear from the start : politics is not ethical. Indeed, almost by definition, in the minds of many Americans, politics is unethical.

Yet we claim to be a free, democratic, and self-governing society. For most people all those terms are positive. Indeed, we tend to divide the world between democratic societies, which are good, and undemocratic ones, which are bad. But how do we exercise our freedom, how do we govern ourselves in a democratic society, except through politics ? And if democracy is good, how can the political practices that make it work be inherently corrupt?

One might say, it is not that democratic politics are inherently bad ; it is just that ours at the moment are bad and we need to reform them. Fair enough. Most institutions, families, marriages, and individuals could use some reform. But will just putting stricter rules on lobbyists make our politics ethical, or are there deeper issues that we need to think about, issues concerning both ethics and politics ?

When I was asked to write this essay, I was examining ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, and of the very terms 'polities' and 'ethics.' Our democracy, a representative democracy, is very different from ancient democracy, a direct democracy in which all citizens, or most of them, actively participated in their own governance. Nevertheless, Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, found something that he considered similar to ancient direct democracy in the New England town meeting. And we can still see direct democracy at work in many civic associations and in many religious congregations.

Tocqueville argued that without this network of voluntary associations, civil society would not be possible. These forms of association, and the practices that they require, help to create the "habits of the heart" - the kinds of individuals and the way they treat each other - necessary for democracy. Some may think that all one needs to have a democracy are elections, but the current situation in the Middle East is teaching us that elections are not sufficient. In fact, without democratic habits of the heart, free elections may simply reproduce the tyrannical institutions that are to be found not just in the government but throughout the society.

The experience of direct democracy (if not at the national level, then at the level of the many associations and groups that make up society) is crucial for an effective democracy, because democracy is a form of self-government, in contrast to monarchy or tyranny, which are forms of government by one person, or to aristocracy or oligarchy, which are forms of government by a small group of people. Direct democracy, in whatever context, gives us the experience of self-government. Ideally, it should create a sense of what we call community, what the Greeks called koinonia, the civic friendship that creates trust between members and makes it easier for them to accept differences of opinion and compromises when opinions are divided.

A long tradition of democratic theory also holds that only citizens who can govern themselves can effectively participate in governing others. If, as Aristotle argued, politics in the true sense involves governing and being governed in turn, we must know how to put the common good before our own. But does that not run up against the very nature of individuals, which compels them to put their own interests first? And does that not contradict the teaching of Adam Smith that if we all pursue our self-interest, things will work out for the best?

But if we read not only The Wealth of Nations but also his equally important book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, we will find Smith saying that no good government can exist on the basis of selfinterest alone. His notion of the invisible spectator, whom we must always keep in mind if we are to be truly ethical persons (his version of what Immanuel Kant later called the categorical imperative) requires that we put the common interest above our own. Smith believed that the pursuit of self-interest was a proper principle in the economy, but not in politics. Indeed, without a framework of ethical politics, a purely self-interested economy would quickly lose the trust that even economic transactions require. (Later, I will raise questions as to whether we understand self-interest in the deepest sense.)

What I have been suggesting is that if we really want a democratic society, ethical politics is not an option - it is a requirement. Political philosophers all the way back to Plato believed that different forms of political regime are linked to different types of person, traits of character, and principles of behavior. One influential version of that idea was that of the Baron de Montesquieu, who lived in France in the early eighteenth century, and whose book, The Spirit of the Laws, was influential among the founders of the American republic.