Can We Judge Politicians by What They Say?

A couple of days ago I wrote a blog proposing two tests for a moral society — and, by extension, moral politics.

The first was Rawls’ veil of ignorance: would we consider a society just if we didn’t know what position we ourselves would occupy within it?

The second was what I called the Christ test: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). In other words, judge people not by what they profess, but by what they actually do.

I concluded that this presented a problem for democracy. We could only really judge the morality of politicians after they had been in power, when their actions had borne fruit.

But something has occurred to me since.

What if speaking is itself a form of action?

Philosophers such as Martin Buber and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and psychotherapists such as Carl Rogers, understood that dialogue is not simply an exchange of pre-existing ideas. It is through our encounters with others that our understanding of ourselves and the world develops.

As Buber famously put it:

> “All real living is meeting.”

And Merleau-Ponty argued that thought is not simply formed privately and subsequently expressed in language. Rather, thought can be realised through expression itself.

Interestingly, there is experimental evidence for this.

Psychologists have identified what they call the question–behaviour effect. A meta-analysis of 116 tests found that simply asking people about their intentions produces a small but measurable change in their subsequent behaviour (Wood et al., 2016).

Another review of 94 tests found that people who articulated specific plans about when and how they would act were substantially more likely to follow through (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).

What we say doesn’t merely reflect what we think. It can help shape what we become.

Of course, these studies concern particular kinds of intentions and behaviour, not political speeches. But they suggest something important: perhaps we shouldn’t dismiss politicians’ words as mere rhetoric while waiting to see their fruits.

Their words may themselves be part of the process through which those fruits develop. And political speech also shapes the understanding and behaviour of those who listen.

So perhaps I was too hasty. What politicians say really does matter, not simply because it reveals their intentions, but because speaking may help create the reality that follows.

Which leaves us with a rather awkward problem.

How do we distinguish politicians whose words express genuine convictions from those who are simply using language to manipulate us?

Perhaps we need a third test.

Now, how on earth do we devise one of those?!

References

● Buber, M. (1923/1970). I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Scribner.

● Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2012). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.

● Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Houghton Mifflin.

● Wood, C. et al. (2016). The Impact of Asking Intention or Self-Prediction Questions on Subsequent Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 245–268.

● Gollwitzer, P. M. & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.