You are here
Book Review: Emil "Bud" Krogh, Integrity
Tuesday, May 27th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
It took a long time for Egil "Bud" Krogh to write his book on
Watergate, but it finally came out a few months ago.
Krogh is not one of the better known Watergaters, partly because he pleaded guilty to his crimes. But as the head of the Plumbers, in charge of investigating leaks to the press, he oversaw the break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. For years he has been giving lectures on ethics, a program he calls the Integrity Zone (and his book is entitled Integrity).
Krogh's book has two central lesson for local government ethics, one about loyalty, the other about certainty.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Loyalty
John Ehrlichman was not only a family friend and a fellow Christian Scientist, but a surrogate father after the death of Krogh's father when Krogh was 22. Krogh went to work for Ehrlichman's law firm. Krogh's career was too closely tied with another man's, and he felt a loyalty strong enough to override his values. He brought this loyalty into a White House that was happy to take advantage of it.
Nixon became another father figure, and in Krogh's relationship with him, patriotism and loyalty combined in a dangerous cocktail. "It seemed at the very least presumptuous, if not unpatriotic, for me to inquire into just what the significance of national security was in those two leaks. For me to suggest that national security was being improperly invoked would've been to invite a confrontation between patriotism and loyalty."
But, as Krogh notes, Nixon confused in his own mind the personal (his political survival) with the idea of national security. Loyalty to oneself, one could call it.
Krogh later came to the realization that "this kind of absolute loyalty lacked integrity, ... because it was unbalanced and too exclusive. ... loyalty to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to moral and ethical requirements should have been key factors in my decisions as well."
Krogh also came to realize that a place where loyalty reigns is an adversarial climate of us versus them, which allows any action to be justified.
Certainty
Krogh had seen Nixon's uncovering of the truth about Hiss as a heroic endeavor, as a noble act. He felt the same way about Ellsberg as he did about Hiss: a betrayer of America. But, Krogh writes, "I overlooked one point in both cases: there was no doubt in Nixon's mind that the man in question was a traitor, long before there was any actual proof."
The Ellsberg break-in was done with the same attitude of unquestioning certainty: "We did not analyze any of the potential consequences of this operation." It simply had to be done, and that was that. They needed a way to delegitimize Ellsberg.
Krogh felt that "groupthink had infected the decisionmaking of the Plumbers' unit. ... We accepted the description of the threat without question, and we did not question each other on the rightness of the break-in or its necessity."
Integrity
This combination of loyalty and certainty is typical at all levels of government. Those who are certain of their stands tend to attract (and expect) loyalty, and having a loyal following makes officials more certain of the rightness of their views and their actions. It's an unholy circle that doesn't always lead to a Watergate, but does always undermine a governmental organization's ethical environment. It effectively acts as a replacement for personal integrity, for taking responsibility for one's own actions, for recogizing or caring about conflicts of interest.
What is most important to Krogh is that he eventually took responsibility for what he did. He pled guilty, did time, and was suspended from legal practice for several years. And he is trying to teach others, including government officials, the importance of taking responsibility for what they do. He notes that when you take a federal position, you get a certificate that says, "Reposing special trust in the integrity of [official's name]." It's this "zone of integrity" that he feels officials need to perform safely and successfully.
He specifically notes "the need for the lawyers on the president's staff to constantly ask the question: is it legal?" This is a question all government lawyers should ask every day, although I think they should also ask, is it ethical? Or as Krogh suggests, "Is my decision whole and complete?"
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Krogh is not one of the better known Watergaters, partly because he pleaded guilty to his crimes. But as the head of the Plumbers, in charge of investigating leaks to the press, he oversaw the break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. For years he has been giving lectures on ethics, a program he calls the Integrity Zone (and his book is entitled Integrity).
Krogh's book has two central lesson for local government ethics, one about loyalty, the other about certainty.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Loyalty
John Ehrlichman was not only a family friend and a fellow Christian Scientist, but a surrogate father after the death of Krogh's father when Krogh was 22. Krogh went to work for Ehrlichman's law firm. Krogh's career was too closely tied with another man's, and he felt a loyalty strong enough to override his values. He brought this loyalty into a White House that was happy to take advantage of it.
Nixon became another father figure, and in Krogh's relationship with him, patriotism and loyalty combined in a dangerous cocktail. "It seemed at the very least presumptuous, if not unpatriotic, for me to inquire into just what the significance of national security was in those two leaks. For me to suggest that national security was being improperly invoked would've been to invite a confrontation between patriotism and loyalty."
But, as Krogh notes, Nixon confused in his own mind the personal (his political survival) with the idea of national security. Loyalty to oneself, one could call it.
Krogh later came to the realization that "this kind of absolute loyalty lacked integrity, ... because it was unbalanced and too exclusive. ... loyalty to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to moral and ethical requirements should have been key factors in my decisions as well."
Krogh also came to realize that a place where loyalty reigns is an adversarial climate of us versus them, which allows any action to be justified.
Certainty
Krogh had seen Nixon's uncovering of the truth about Hiss as a heroic endeavor, as a noble act. He felt the same way about Ellsberg as he did about Hiss: a betrayer of America. But, Krogh writes, "I overlooked one point in both cases: there was no doubt in Nixon's mind that the man in question was a traitor, long before there was any actual proof."
The Ellsberg break-in was done with the same attitude of unquestioning certainty: "We did not analyze any of the potential consequences of this operation." It simply had to be done, and that was that. They needed a way to delegitimize Ellsberg.
Krogh felt that "groupthink had infected the decisionmaking of the Plumbers' unit. ... We accepted the description of the threat without question, and we did not question each other on the rightness of the break-in or its necessity."
Integrity
This combination of loyalty and certainty is typical at all levels of government. Those who are certain of their stands tend to attract (and expect) loyalty, and having a loyal following makes officials more certain of the rightness of their views and their actions. It's an unholy circle that doesn't always lead to a Watergate, but does always undermine a governmental organization's ethical environment. It effectively acts as a replacement for personal integrity, for taking responsibility for one's own actions, for recogizing or caring about conflicts of interest.
What is most important to Krogh is that he eventually took responsibility for what he did. He pled guilty, did time, and was suspended from legal practice for several years. And he is trying to teach others, including government officials, the importance of taking responsibility for what they do. He notes that when you take a federal position, you get a certificate that says, "Reposing special trust in the integrity of [official's name]." It's this "zone of integrity" that he feels officials need to perform safely and successfully.
He specifically notes "the need for the lawyers on the president's staff to constantly ask the question: is it legal?" This is a question all government lawyers should ask every day, although I think they should also ask, is it ethical? Or as Krogh suggests, "Is my decision whole and complete?"
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Keith McLeod (not verified) says:
Thu, 2009-03-26 20:18
Permalink
After Krogh pled guilty and come to the realization of his error, did his relationship with John Ehrlichman change?
His theme is loyalty, unquestioning certainty and integrity in government. These three issues play a role in business as well where excesses can raise its ugly head. Care to comment?
I am also curious what steps can be done to halt such future action other than relying on the men and women in office and their staff's own judgment.
Keith McLeod
Robert Wechsler says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 09:41
Permalink
Loyalty is a difficult thing to deal with through ethics laws, even though it is all about personal vs. public interest.
Dealing with it requires ethical leadership and a different view of what is proper when a government official hires. The norm now is to pick people that are loyal to you or loyal to someone close to you (sometimes fellow party members), that you know personally or through a close associate, and can trust not to undermine you.
The alternative is to pick someone who appears to be good for the job, but has no personal or political ties, directly or indirectly. This requires taking yourself out of the equation, and thinking only in terms of the positions. It requires thinking that the proper thing to do is to hire someone who will not appear to be there to serve you, but rather your position, whoever might be in it tomorrow.
Of course, it would help this approach to work if the person in it tomorrow respected such a decision and didn't fire the person in favor of someone loyal to him.
An ethical leader can insist on this way of thinking, which goes beyond taking into consideration a person's possible conflicts, a position that has caused problems for Pres. Obama. But it would change the political dynamics of government hiring.
Sadly, many people wouldn't even believe that it was being done (or would act as if they didn't). I've seen it happen in my own town, where accusations were made, for example, that the official actually knew the hiree's spouse and had hid this fact.
But it's still worth trying.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics