Imagine a world where everyone practiced impeccable morality and good virtue. Imagine a place where no one would harm another being in any way. No one would assault, take advantage of, or kill another. No one would steal from another. No one would lie to, insult, or diminish another. People were always kind and generous. However unlikely this scenario, it would be a place of absolute safety. To a Buddhist, this is the purpose of morality – to provide safety to oneself and to others.

The aspect of morality contains three factors: right speech, right action, and right livelihood. How we speak to others (and to ourselves!), how we act, and how we support ourselves in the world are fundamental to a Buddhist way of life. Without morality (indeed, without any of the aspects) the practice cannot be Buddhist.

The Buddha gives four criteria that will ensure one’s speech is in accord with that which promotes goodness rather than harm. Right speech is:

• Truthful
• Harmonious
• Pleasant
• Meaningful

One’s speech is “right” when it embodies these four qualities. It is right because it fosters real safety and tends to shed light upon the darkness of delusion, which is part of the human condition.

If right speech fosters safety, what can be said of “wrong” speech? Wrong speech reinforces and perpetuates doubt and delusion. Wrong speech injures.

Delusion may not be a very nice word to some. It may conjure images of stupid or crazy. What delusion means – from a Buddhist perspective – becomes clearer when you think in terms of its opposite: wisdom. A person who possesses wisdom does necessarily possess a high IQ or an utterly sane mind – both of which are relative states.

Think of wisdom and delusion as reciprocal states. The more wise a person becomes, the less deluded.

Consider how you would answer these two questions: Are you wise? Are you deluded? Most people, I think, would deny both, for a wise person would not likely brag about it. A deluded person would not likely have the wisdom to know it, so would react with indignation.

With this as background, I turn to the current election and the role speech plays in the campaigns.

When voters like and believe in what they hear from a candidate, they “jump on the bandwagon.” To keep voters on the bandwagon – and more importantly to keep them from jumping to the other guy’s – candidates try to ensure that the other guy’s party is not where voters want to be. Sometimes the tactics used to gain and keep voters are less than honest, designed more to delude and confuse rather than to shed light on important issues. At some point truth becomes irrelevant to both the ticket and the electorate who would vote for it.

Where in all of this is right speech? Is what the candidates (and their supporters) say truthful, harmonious, pleasant, and meaningful? Does what they say foster clarity and insight, or induce doubt and perpetuate delusion?

When a candidate is less than honest with voters – intentionally less than honest – in a campaign, can that candidate, once elected, be expected to be honest with the United States citizenry during the normal course of business? Or would such an executive continue a pattern of deluding the public?

And what of the voters who would ignore evidence of deception and vote merely on emotion? Are they wise? Are they deluded? Are they capable of knowing the difference?

Can there be anything right about speech that is intended to divide, confuse, mislead, and further delude the electorate in an effort to inspire disdain – if not hatred – for the opposition? Is such speech wise? Is it moral?

]]> http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/09/14/right-speech-and-the-politics-of-delusion/feed/ 5