Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind IV: Accountability
One section of Haidt's book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/03073…; target="”_blank”"><i>The
Righteous Mind</a></i>: <i>Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion</i> (Pantheon, 2012) is entitled "We Are All Intuitive
Politicians." The section begins with a recognition of the
centrality of accountability not just in government, but in all our
relations with people. "Human beings," he says, "are the world
champions of cooperation beyond kinship, and we do it in large part
by creating systems of formal and informal accountability. We're
really good at holding others accountable for their actions, and
we're really skilled at navigating through a world in which others
will hold us accountable for our own. … We act like intuitive
politicians striving to maintain appealing moral identities in front
of our multiple constituencies."<br>
<br>
To succeed socially, we need to create and maintain an appealing
moral identity. And this means that appearance is more important
than reality. However, we expect others' moral identity to be real,
and we are angry when it turns out not to be, just as with actual
politicians.<br>
<br>
The other important thing that Haidt notes in this section is that,
"when people know in advance that they'll have to explain
themselves, they think more systematically and self-critically. They
are less likely to jump to premature conclusions and more likely to
revise their beliefs in response to evidence." In other words, when
people truly feel they will be held accountable for their words and
actions, they act more reasonable, honest, and responsible. This is
why the participation of informed citizens in local government is so
important, and why it is the principal indirect goal of local
government ethics.<br>
<br>
This can be more clearly seen in the results of Phil Tetlock's research into
accountability, which Haidt cites. Tetlock found two kinds of
careful reasoning: exploratory thought, which considers
alternative points of view in an evenhanded way; and confirmatory
thought, which rationalizes a particular point of view. Tetlock's
studies used situations where there was no self-interest, strong
emotions, or politicians involved. As Haidt says, "what chance is
there that people will think in an open-minded, exploratory way when
self-interest, social identity, and strong emotions make them want
or even need to reach a preordained conclusion?"<br>
<br>
Tetlock found that accountability increases exploratory thought,
which we say we want from our government officials, only
when three conditions exist:<ul>
Before forming an opinion, the official learned that she would be
held accountable to an audience.<br>
The audience's views are unknown.<br>
The official believes the audience is well informed and interested
in accuracy.</ul>
The problem is that all three conditions are rarely met, so rarely
that many people are not very good at exploratory thought, no better
than they are at sports they rarely play. What government officials
need is practice. But most people don't like to practice. They need
a coach to get them out on the court or the driving range. Officials
have the public, but rarely does the public get to engage directly
with officials in a public forum. They can speak, but it's easy to
ignore them or twist what they say to make them look wrong. Citizens
can sometimes ask a question, but they rarely can follow it up with
questions, at least not enough to force an official out of her
comfort zone. So even if the audience is knowledgeable and interested in accuracy,
it's hard to ensure it.<br>
<br>
Ensuring accuracy requires not only well-informed and active
citizens, but procedures that allow them to truly hold officials
accountable. This includes timely transparency, that is, knowledge
of the officials' positions and arguments well before a public
hearing, so citizens can prepare. Even better would be the ability
of at least civic organizations to ask questions and get answers in
advance, so that they are on something close to an equal footing at a public hearing.<br>
<br>
This is a lot of work, but since everyone agrees that accountability
is an essential part of governing, what's wrong with accountability
being a lot of work? The problem is that people don't agree on what
accountability means. I agree much more with Tetlock and Haidt than
I do with the most common position taken by elected local
officials: we are held accountable every election. <br>
<br>
That sort
of accountability does not require any of the three
conditions: the audience's views are known through polling,
the official knows the audience is poorly informed, and accuracy is
only one of dozens of issues. In fact, an election cannot hold an official accountable for any single position, action, or inaction, unless one is so repellent to a majority of the minority of
people who bother to vote in local elections, that it leads them to
want to throw the bastard out (and even still, the opponent might be seen as more of a bastard).<br>
<br>
And as we all know, more misinformation
is spread by officials during elections than any other time, and this is because they know they won't be held accountable for it. If
elections held officials accountable for what they say, election
campaigns would be nothing like they are.<br>
<br>
In a government ethics context, the three conditions of
accountability can be met when officials are required to seek ethics
advice if they have a special relationship with anyone involved in a
particular matter that is going to come before them. The official
will know that the ethics officer is well informed and interested in
accuracy, and the official will not know how the ethics officer will
respond (although he may falsely assume that the ethics officer will tell
the official to withdraw from the matter). And since the
official is obliged to follow the advice, he will effectively be
held accountable, no matter what his feelings or arguments are.<br>
<br>
But what usually happens when an official is faced with a conflict situation is that the official need say
nothing to anyone. When he does choose to seek advice, he seeks it from the city or county attorney, who is generally not well informed about government ethics and is usually interested not in accuracy, but rather in interpreting an ethics law in such a way that the official can
participate, if that is what the official wants to do. In addition, there is
no one to hold the city or county attorney accountable for poor, or
even wrong, ethics advice. And the official can say he followed the advice he was given. Therefore, there is no accountability at all.<br>
<br>
Continue with <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/summer-reading-righteous-mind-v-relat… next post on this book.</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---