Is it morally permissible for political adversaries to use political silencing against each other in the course of campaigning or governing?

Consider the case of the political attacks leveled against Michael Ignatief. In his words, his opponents targeted his standing, a kind of political silencing. In this paper, using the case as your focus, describe what political silencing—an attack on standing—is according to Ignatif, and argue whether it is morally appropriate for political adversaries to use it against each other in the course of campaigning for or governing from elected office.

Begin by explaining political silencing within the Ignatief case, specifically incorporating at least one additional case from the “Crafty Communication” reading. Clarify the phil- osophical position Ignatief offers, such that a reader could articulate the position with- out reading the chapter provided or the accompanying readings, making clear how that position might interpret, defend, or attack the actions of actors in the “Crafty” cases.

After engaging Ignatief, offer a philosophical analysis of the Jennifer Mather Saul reading titled “Lying, Misleading, and What is Said” in regards to the issues raised by Ignatief. Endeavor to explain Saul’s position regarding speech such that it is immediately clear both what she is arguing for and how that argument might inform the Ignatief discussion.

After completing your analysis of both the Ignatief case and Saul reading, critique both positions and provide your own original argument regarding political silencing, drawing upon any other philosophical frameworks from the class that you find useful in the con- struction of your argument. You should strive to answer the question provided for politi- cal speech broadly, beyond the cases you have described so far in the paper.

The structure of your paper should be as follows:

Case Analysis: Ignatief / Additional Cases (approx. 3 pgs)

Philosophical Analysis: Misleading vs. Lying (approx. 3 pgs)

Negative Critique of Ignatief’s Position (approx. 3 pgs)

Original Positive Argument RE: Silencing (approx. 6pgs)

—-

these are the readings:
1- http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/the-ways-of-silencing/
2-http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/speech-lies-and-apathy/?_r=0
3-“Is Lying Worse Than Merely Misleading,” from Lying, Misleading, and What Is Said (ch4, jennifer saul)

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]