Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:15:48.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Adversarial Ethics for Campaigns and Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2019

Samuel Bagg Open the ORCID record for Samuel Bagg [Opens in a new window]  and
Isak Tranvik Open the ORCID record for Isak Tranvik [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing approaches to campaign ethics fail to adequately account for the “arms races” incited by competitive incentives in the absence of effective sanctions for destructive behaviors. By recommending scrupulous devotion to unenforceable norms of honesty, these approaches require ethical candidates either to quit or lose. To better understand the complex dilemmas faced by candidates, therefore, we turn first to the tradition of “adversarial ethics,” which aims to enable ethical participants to compete while preventing the most destructive excesses of competition. As we demonstrate, however, elections present even more difficult challenges than other adversarial contexts, because no centralized regulation is available to halt potential arms races. Turning next to recent scholarship on populism and partisanship, we articulate an alternative framework for campaign ethics, which allows candidates greater room to maneuver in their appeals to democratic populations while nevertheless requiring adherence to norms of social and political pluralism.

Type
Special Section: Perspectival Political Theory
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 973 - 987
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlquist, John S., Ichino, Nahomi, Wittenberg, Jason, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. “How Do Voters Perceive Changes to the Rules of the Game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian Elections.” Journal of Comparative Economics 46(4): 906–19.10.1016/j.jce.2018.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applbaum, Arthur Isak. 2000. Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400822935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Baderin, Alice. 2014. “Two Forms of Realism in Political Theory.” European Journal of Political Theory 13(2): 132–53.10.1177/1474885113483284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. 2016. “Between Critical and Normative Theory: Predictive Political Theory as a Deweyan Realism.” Political Research Quarterly 69(2): 233–44.10.1177/1065912916634898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. 2017. “When Will a Darwinian Approach Be Useful for the Study of Society?” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 16(3): 259–81.10.1177/1470594X16687839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. 2018a. “Can Deliberation Neutralise Power?” European Journal of Political Theory 17(3): 257–79.10.1177/1474885115610542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. 2018b. “The Power of the Multitude: Answering Epistemic Challenges to Democracy.” American Political Science Review 112(4): 891–904.10.1017/S0003055418000527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. 2018c. “What Makes a Political Theory Political? A Comment on Waldron.” Political Studies Review 16(3): 184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24(2): 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beerbohm, Eric. 2012. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beerbohm, Eric. 2016. “The Ethics of Electioneering.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24(4): 381–405.10.1111/jopp.12082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyte, Harry C. 2010. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bretherton, Luke. 2014. Resurrecting Democracy: Faith, Citizenship, and the Politics of a Common Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1991. Identity, Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105(1): 100–114.10.1017/S0003055410000602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresden, Jennifer Raymond and Howard, Marc Morjé. 2016. “Authoritarian Backsliding and the Concentration of Political Power.” Democratization 23(7): 1122–43.10.1080/13510347.2015.1045884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William. 1991. “Toughness as a Political Virtue.” Social Theory and Practice 17(2): 175–97.10.5840/soctheorpract19911724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William. 2010. “Realism in Political Theory.” European Journal of Political Theory 9(4): 385–411.10.1177/1474885110374001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William. 2018. Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grattan, Laura. 2016. Populism’s Power: Radical Grassroots Democracy in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jeffrey Edward. 2009. The Eyes of the People: Democracy in an Age of Spectatorship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372649.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Chrystal. 2018. “Eric Holder Says Michelle Obama Was Wrong: ‘When They Go Low, We Kick Them.’” USA Today.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2006. “An Adversarial Ethic for Business: Or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder.” Journal of Business Ethics 72(4): 359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellmann, Jessie. 2016. “Clinton: ‘Ugliness,’ and ‘Bigotry’ the Best Trump Can Do.” The Hill. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296252-clinton-calls-trumps-birther-comments-as-ugly-and-bigoted.Google Scholar
Ingham, Sean. 2019. “Why Arrow’s Theorem Matters for Political Theory Even if Preference Cycles Never Occur.” Public Choice 179(1): 97–111.10.1007/s11127-018-0521-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Braman, Donald, Gastil, John, Slovic, Paul, and Mertz, C. K.. 2007. “Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4(3): 465–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirshner, Alexander S. 2014. A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combating Political Extremism. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.12987/yale/9780300188240.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirshner, Alexander S. 2016. “Legitimate Opposition, Ostracism, and the Law of Democracy in Ancient Athens.” Journal of Politics 78(4): 1094–1106.10.1086/686028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate—The Essential Guide for Progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Lee, Sigelman, and Rovner, Ivy Brown. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” Journal of Politics 69(4): 1176–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Lipsitz, Keena. 2004. “Democratic Theory and Political Campaigns.” Journal of Political Philosophy 12(2): 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisel, L. Sandy. 2002. “Promises and Persuasion.” In Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics, eds. Nelson, Candice J., Dulio, David A., and Medvic, Stephen K., 39–60. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Maloy, Jason Stuart. 2013. Democratic Statecraft: Political Realism and Popular Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139026697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–528.10.1017/S0003055403000856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Jones, Jeffrey M.. 2002. “The Pandering Politicians of Suspicious Minds.” Journal of Politics 64(2): 362–83.10.1111/1468-2508.00130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKean, Benjamin L. 2016. “Toward an Inclusive Populism? On the Role of Race and Difference in Laclau’s Politics.” Political Theory 44(6): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medearis, John. 2015. Why Democracy Is Oppositional. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674286627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medvic, Stephen K. and Miller., Dale E. 2002. “Civic Responsibility or Self-Interest?” In Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics, eds. Nelson, Candice J., Dulio, David A., and Medvic, Stephen K., 18–38. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Mickey, Robert, Levitsky, Steven, and Ahmad Way, Lucan. 2017. “Is America Still Safe for Democracy?” Foreign Affairs (May/June).Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2018. For a Left Populism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812293784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Wayne. 2011. “Business Ethics as Self-Regulation: Why Principles that Ground Regulations Should Be Used to Ground Beyond-Compliance Norms as Well.” Journal of Business Ethics 102(1): 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1999. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” In Democracy’s Value, eds. Shapiro, Ian and Hacker-Cordon, Casiano, 23–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511778490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 2018. Why Bother With Elections? Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Science. San Francisco: Freeman Press.Google Scholar
Robin, Corey. 2018. “Democracy Is Norm Erosion.” Jacobin, December 20, http://jacobinmag.com/2018/01/democracy-trump-authoritarianism-levitsky-zillblatt-norms.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L 2010. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400828975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1999. “Enough of Deliberation: Politics Is about Interests and Power.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, Stephen, 28–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2016. Politics against Domination. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Abraham. 2018. The Form of the Firm: A Normative Political Theory of the Corporation. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190698348.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleat, Matt. 2016. “Realism, Liberalism and Non-Ideal Theory: Or, Are There Two Ways to Do Realistic Political Theory?” Political Studies 64(1): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somin, Ilya. 2013. Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stout, Jeffrey. 2012. Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Svolik, Milan. 2018 “When Polarization Trumps Civic Virtue: Partisan Conflict and the Subversion of Democracy by Incumbents.” doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3243470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weale, Albert. 2018. The Will of the People: A Modern Myth. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar