Values in political argument

We often refer to values in argument even though we very rarely discuss what they are and what they mean. It is taken for granted that, “We all know what we mean” when, for example, an action is justified by reference to justice or freedom. This is a very large assumption when we remember that such concepts have been the stuff of philosophical debate for thousands of years. We hear expressions like “our values”; “Western values”; “the values of decent ordinary people” -- and to ask for details somehow implies that we are not ourselves decent ordinary people. Perhaps there were times in the past when a consensus on values could be assumed because, for example, the same religious beliefs were held across most of society. If that were the case, we might innocently have got into the habit of referring to values which never had to be made explicit. Personally, I doubt that there ever was such a golden age, not least because the links between religious beliefs and values are sufficiently complex that shared religious beliefs might never have generated widespread common values. But in the open and heterogenous society we now have it is extraordinary that anyone can honestly assume that values are so widely shared and understood that they do not need discussion but can simply be referred to by abstract nouns.

This tendency is present in everyday life but it is in political argument that it is most apparent. It is perfectly understandable that politicians are not (in the main) philosophers and their job is certainly not to analyse the meaning of words. Nevertheless, we do look to political leaders to articulate visions of what kind of society we will become and what kind of people we are, at least in our social aspects. So, is it asking too much that politicians should be able to spell out not merely practical policies, but the values which lie behind them, which is to say the vision of society that they represent? Increasingly however what we find is that politicians simply use value words like puppets in an old-fashioned Punch and Judy show. They hold up “Justice” and we cheer: they hold up “Privilege” and we boo. Perhaps we get the politicians we deserve, but with one or two honorable exceptions (I think of Robert Kennedy and Obama) we do not seem to get politicians who will articulate visions or values.

Perhaps though this complaint is to do with the medium and not the message. Perhaps it is simply the summarising and condensing of political messages into soundbites which gives the impression that no thought is given to values. Nevertheless, it remains true that people’s opinions, loyalties and allegiances are swayed on the basis of value words the meaning of which is never fully discussed. That in itself is a distortion of the democratic process.

But in recent years a worse habit has crept into political currency. Politicians use references to values not as a way of justifying their actions or of advancing discussion, but as a way of putting their actions beyond the need for justification and preventing discussion. The classic example is the defence of the invasion of Iraq. It seems to be enough for a politician to say, “I did what I thought was right”, to put the matter beyond further discussion.

Just think about this for a moment. What was done in this particular instance was, it is now agreed, done on false assumptions. There have been some significant benefits as a consequence for the people of Iraq, but there have also been very considerable hardships and difficulties, not least the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. A cruel dictator was overthrown, but the world is littered with cruel dictators and there is no general assumption that getting rid of them justifies external military intervention whenever the mood takes a country powerful enough to do it. This invasion was, on the very best and most generous interpretation, a huge mistake of a kind which should and usually would destroy a politician’s reputation and credibility.

But the defence is simply to say, “I did what I thought was right”. By appealing to values the discussion is apparently ended, the fox has gone to ground. It is considered inadmissible to question a person’s values, perhaps because it may seem to be an attack on their religious beliefs or perhaps because it may seem a personal attack, a person’s values being so intimately part of who they are. Not the least extraordinary aspect of this is the implicit assumption that our leaders act only in their own names and therefore need consider only their own values, not ours, in their decisions on our behalf. But public actions must surely be justified by reference to public values, to values that are open to public scrutiny, not simply by reference to anyone’s inscrutable conscience. “I did what I thought was right” is nowhere near good enough, unless it is the preamble to a full explanation of what made it seem so right.

We see the same pattern more and more as a justification of everyday political decisions. Leaders no longer say, “I think this is right because …” and go on to give a fuller explanation of the justification for their decision. They simply say, “I am doing this because it is right.” As soon as an ethical value is invoked further discussion or explanation is considered unnecessary. Values are being invoked not as part of an argument or an explanation but as a way of preventing them.

This tendency can only be harmful and it displays an astonishing arrogance on the part of those who use it. Of course values are an important part of the reasoning which supports any important political decision. But those values need to be explained and the more important the decision the more the values need to be explored. To use a value word like a trump card to end discussion shows a debasement of political language. It strongly reinforces the need to find ways of talking about values so that values can take their proper place in political discussion. “It is right” is not a proper justification of any action, it is at best an indication that an argument based on values may be about to follow. We need to talk about values to prevent this kind of political manipulation and take political discussion back to an honest level where both facts and values are open to challenge and discussion.