Monthly Archives: January 2009

should lying to the public be a crime?

This is an argument from my side of the aisle, so to speak, that really upsets me. (Frank Rich, Dec. 13):

    Blagojevich’s alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.

    The Republican partisans cheering Fitzgerald’s prosecution of a Democrat have forgotten his other red-letter case in this decade, his conviction of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was far bigger prey. He was part of the White House Iraq Group, the task force of propagandists that sold an entire war to America on false pretenses. Because Libby was caught lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors as well as to the public, he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. But President Bush commuted the sentence before he served a day.

It is not against the law to lie to the public or to start a war on false pretenses. Because those acts are not illegal, Libby was not charged with them. He was not investigated for lying to the public; no evidence to that effect was ever put before a jury. No one examined him to see whether his assertions were (a) false and (b) knowingly so. He could not defend himself in court against an accusation of deliberately misleading the American people, because no such accusation was made. If, as Frank Rich apparently wishes, Libby was convicted because he lied to the public about a war, that was a flagrant violation of the rule of law, one of whose fundamental principles is nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege (“no crime and no punishment without a law”).

Having gotten that off my chest, I’d like to raise a more theoretical question: Would it make any sense to create a criminal law against lying to the public? The elements of this crime would have to include intent and serious consequences. In other words, it would be a defense to say that you didn’t know your information was wrong; and it would be a defense to say that your lie was inconsequential. The law could govern any public utterance, or only certain contexts, such as formal speeches given by high officials. We already have perjury laws that apply to sworn testimony; these would be broadened. Another precedent is the Oregon law that says that candidates’ personal statements in state voter guides must be true. Former Congressman Wes Cooley was convicted of falsely claiming that he had served in the Special Forces.

In favor of this reform: Lying is wrong. It can cause serious harm to other people. Lying by public officials can undermine the public’s sovereignty by giving citizens false information to use in making judgments. Although it can be challenging to prove intent, that is certainly possible in some circumstances, as we know from perjury trials.

Against: There could be a chilling effect on free speech, because people who participate in heated debates do occasionally stray from the truth. It would be bad to suppress such debates altogether. Also, criminalizing lying would shift power from the legislative and executive branches to the judiciary, which might therefore become even more “political.” The reform might reduce the public’s sense that we are responsible for scrutinizing our government’s statements and actions and punishing bad behavior at the ballot box.

Finally, it would distort the political debate if there were frequent, high-stakes battles over whether individuals had knowingly lied about specific facts. Often a specific prevarication is not nearly as important as someone’s bad values and priorities. For instance, the Bush Administration very publicly and openly denigrated the importance of foreigners’ human rights and chose an aggressive and bellicose strategy. These were not lies; they were public choices that unfortunately happened to be quite popular.

service and reflection on MLK Day

The Corporation for National and Community Service, other federal agencies, and various private groups have been working for some time to turn Martin Luther King Day into an opportunity for civic work–a “day on,” not just a “day off.” The Obama Administration seems likely to ramp that up, starting this year. King’s birthday (Jan. 19) is also the day before the Inauguration, and the Obama and Biden families will themselves participate in service. USA Service.org is a new vehicle for posting service events so that other citizens can find them. You are encouraged to post your events there.

Service is best when it includes elements of analysis, deliberation, collective planning, and reflection. It would be very helpful for individuals and groups to post events on the USA Service website that go somewhat beyond “service” in its narrowest sense. Deliberations, dialogues, organizational or planning meetings, charettes, and even cultural events with strong civic components would be good additions, in my opinion. They would help to portray a wider range of civic work.

this blog turns six

My first post was on January 8, 2003. This is post number 1,493, which equals just slightly less than one per work day over the six years. (I am compulsive about blogging.)

I don’t think I changed my approach to the blog much this year–I’m still serving up a mixture of commentary on politics (with a strong civic/populist lens), some light cultural criticism, and some links to civic projects. I’m pleased that there are more and more fellow bloggers professionally committed to civic renewal–please see my blogroll.

I continue to feel that there’s no tradeoff between blogging and other work that a researcher/academic does. When I’m working on an article, speech, or lecture, I usually post notes or excerpts here first. And sometimes a post leads to a publication. For instance, I was asked to turn this entry on the Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act into a scholarly article; and I gave permission for this one to be reprinted in a high school textbook–in Canada, I believe. Thus, as long as I’m functioning, I’m confident I’ll keep blogging in ’09.

empowering citizens to make sure the stimulus is well spent

If we are going to borrow a trillion dollars from our kids to spend now on economic recovery, the money had better be well spent. Avoiding waste and fraud is a political imperative; Obama’s reelection may depend on it. It also seems important economically. A big rationale for fiscal stimulus spending is to restore confidence. My guess is that people will feel confident if they believe a trillion dollars is being well deployed–less so, if they think it is being wasted.

So far, the President Elect has announced that he’s hiring a management consultant, Nancy Killefer, of McKinsey & Company, as a “chief performance officer” and that he will be looking for efficiencies and cuts everywhere in the budget. I think this is essential. Fully compatible with my populist resistance to technocracy is a recognition that it’s better to be efficient than inefficient–especially with public money–and that experts can help achieve efficiency.

Yet we can also engage ordinary citizens in overseeing and shaping the use of a trillion dollars of their money. They can add enormous value through sheer numbers of brains and also because they know their own communities best. Equally important, the experience of participating can add legitimacy.

Three tools occur to me, but there are probably more:

1. “Crowdsourcing” the budget. This would mean putting all the details of federal revenue and expenditure online and building a structure to allow people not only to view the data, not only to post individual comments and opinions, but also to accumulate analysis. The structure might be some combination of a wiki, visualization tools, and comment threads–I yield to others who understand these things better than I. (Some helpful ideas are coming from the right.)

2. Participatory Budgeting (PB). This is a policy of setting aside a proportion of government expenditures (usually capital spending) to be allocated by citizens in local deliberative sessions. In Brazil, where PB originated, the sessions are large, face-to-face meetings. Britain and other countries have picked up the model. It has been found to cut waste and corruption, in part because citizens who choose how to spend money become invested in overseeing the implementation. By the way, I don’t see why the conversation couldn’t be virtual as well as face-to-face.

3. Large-scale deliberations, along the lines proposed by AmericaSPEAKS, about big budgetary choices at the national level.

inauguration fever

We’ve recently returned from some vacation time in our former hometown of Washington, DC. I was struck by the depth and breadth of excitement about the inauguration and the new administration. We didn’t interview a representative sample of the city’s population, but we did talk to people from many walks of life, including individuals who have no professional connection to politics or government. Virtually everyone has a plan for Inauguration Day, an opinion about the new appointments, and an eagerness to talk about various aspects of the Obama Administration. In the Metro, the regular commercial advertising (for instance, Ikea’s posters) almost all makes punning references to “change” or “yes we can.” The Metro tickets themselves show Barack Obama’s face. The Post has a daily “Inauguration Watch” feature, and everyone knows when the Obama kids are arriving in town.

Part of the reason is that DC voters chose Obama over McCain by 92%-6%, and Obama over Clinton by 76%-24% in the primaries. Obama was a great fit for most of the voting blocs of the city: working-class African Americans, highly educated African Americans, progressive political activists of all races, and young tech-savvy folks.

In the Boston area, some people are sophisticated about national politics. They may teach it, or they may have done stints in Washington, or they may be political junkies. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to ride public transportation every day or talk to parents of your kids’ friends and not hear a word about the transition. In DC, you can’t go more than five minutes without an opinion, a plan, a comment, or a prayer.