You are here
Ethics Attacks and Ethics Reform
Wednesday, October 20th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Meredith McGehee wrote
a thought-provoking Campaign Legal Center blog post yesterday about
the upside of election time ethics attacks on opponents.
"Current political thinking generally laments this development, arguing that it cheapens the process and puts all politicians in a bad light." But she sees it as a good development. I don't agree.
Does the Prospect of Attacks Cause Politicians to Better Police Themselves?
One reason she sees it as a good development is that, "if a politician is concerned about being accused of an ethics violation, he (or she) will do a better job at policing himself." This assumes that the allegation is true and that it actually has to do with government ethics and recent actions, rather than, say, personal misconduct years before. The accusations I've been reading lately have to do with things like business people laying off workers and sending jobs abroad, or politicians lying about the tax raises they made. Some people would call these accusations of ethical misconduct, but they have nothing to do with government ethics, are usually distortions or careful selections of facts, and often deal with events ten or twenty years ago.
Lying is the number one sin attacked, but since the "lies" are so often mischaracterized, and the attacker attacked right back, it's hard to know how self-policing could change anything.
Also, it's not just a matter of "policing oneself" better. That is the issue when it comes to, for example, giving earmarks to your brother's company. But someone who does this believes that nothing will be done about it, either that it won't come out or that the ethics process won't work against him. This is one of many psychological issues that prevent the sort of rational judgment McGehee is referring to (others include a sense of entitlement and an inability to judge appearances of impropriety, at least when it comes to one's own conduct).
And, in many cases, ethical misconduct cannot be "policed" in this way of thinking. Preventing it involves not just dealing responsibly with conflicts. It also involves dealing responsibly with the outing of instances where conflicts have been irresponsibly handled. An official who immediately apologizes and reaches a settlement with an ethics commission over a case of misconduct is hard to honestly attack. It's often the secondary misconduct, which is not ethical misconduct, that opens a government official to attack for the original misconduct.
Does the Public Care About Government Ethics Issues?
McGehee's second reason for feeling ethical attacks at election time are a good thing is that "the use of allegations of ethics violations are a demonstration that politicians think the public cares about these issues." Of course, the public cares about ethics when ethical misconduct is turned into scandal, that is, when it is simplified, sexed up, and turned into a morality play of good vs. corruption, outsider vs. insider, us vs. them.
The problem is that the public is not made more interested in the gray areas, in fixing limited and poorly written ethics codes, in better ethics training, or in the need for independent ethics advice and enforcement. Rarely are any of the major issues in government ethics brought out in election time attacks on candidates' ethical misconduct. Rarely is the issue anything but corruption itself, whatever that is.
In fact, election time attacks crowd out serious talk about ethics reform. Usually there is a focus on one reform measure, usually involving enforcement, such as pension forfeiture, more serious criminal penalties, recall laws, or giving an inspector general more powers.
Even when candidates win and reform their government's ethics program, it is amazing how many ethics reformers end up in ethics trouble. Those who focus their campaigns on personal attacks are unlikely to deal responsibly with their own conflicts. They are more likely to be insecure individuals who demonize others or who depend overly much on advisers who are caught up in the game of politics. Secure, responsible individuals are more likely to focus on the issues, and recognize that ethics reform is not about an individual's misconduct, but about a program that isn't working and leadership that is missing. It is the rare personal attacker who provides ethical leadership.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
"Current political thinking generally laments this development, arguing that it cheapens the process and puts all politicians in a bad light." But she sees it as a good development. I don't agree.
Does the Prospect of Attacks Cause Politicians to Better Police Themselves?
One reason she sees it as a good development is that, "if a politician is concerned about being accused of an ethics violation, he (or she) will do a better job at policing himself." This assumes that the allegation is true and that it actually has to do with government ethics and recent actions, rather than, say, personal misconduct years before. The accusations I've been reading lately have to do with things like business people laying off workers and sending jobs abroad, or politicians lying about the tax raises they made. Some people would call these accusations of ethical misconduct, but they have nothing to do with government ethics, are usually distortions or careful selections of facts, and often deal with events ten or twenty years ago.
Lying is the number one sin attacked, but since the "lies" are so often mischaracterized, and the attacker attacked right back, it's hard to know how self-policing could change anything.
Also, it's not just a matter of "policing oneself" better. That is the issue when it comes to, for example, giving earmarks to your brother's company. But someone who does this believes that nothing will be done about it, either that it won't come out or that the ethics process won't work against him. This is one of many psychological issues that prevent the sort of rational judgment McGehee is referring to (others include a sense of entitlement and an inability to judge appearances of impropriety, at least when it comes to one's own conduct).
And, in many cases, ethical misconduct cannot be "policed" in this way of thinking. Preventing it involves not just dealing responsibly with conflicts. It also involves dealing responsibly with the outing of instances where conflicts have been irresponsibly handled. An official who immediately apologizes and reaches a settlement with an ethics commission over a case of misconduct is hard to honestly attack. It's often the secondary misconduct, which is not ethical misconduct, that opens a government official to attack for the original misconduct.
Does the Public Care About Government Ethics Issues?
McGehee's second reason for feeling ethical attacks at election time are a good thing is that "the use of allegations of ethics violations are a demonstration that politicians think the public cares about these issues." Of course, the public cares about ethics when ethical misconduct is turned into scandal, that is, when it is simplified, sexed up, and turned into a morality play of good vs. corruption, outsider vs. insider, us vs. them.
The problem is that the public is not made more interested in the gray areas, in fixing limited and poorly written ethics codes, in better ethics training, or in the need for independent ethics advice and enforcement. Rarely are any of the major issues in government ethics brought out in election time attacks on candidates' ethical misconduct. Rarely is the issue anything but corruption itself, whatever that is.
In fact, election time attacks crowd out serious talk about ethics reform. Usually there is a focus on one reform measure, usually involving enforcement, such as pension forfeiture, more serious criminal penalties, recall laws, or giving an inspector general more powers.
Even when candidates win and reform their government's ethics program, it is amazing how many ethics reformers end up in ethics trouble. Those who focus their campaigns on personal attacks are unlikely to deal responsibly with their own conflicts. They are more likely to be insecure individuals who demonize others or who depend overly much on advisers who are caught up in the game of politics. Secure, responsible individuals are more likely to focus on the issues, and recognize that ethics reform is not about an individual's misconduct, but about a program that isn't working and leadership that is missing. It is the rare personal attacker who provides ethical leadership.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
