Fire, Smoke, and Snowballs
It's valuable to put government ethics in the larger context of the
use of public office for private purposes that does not involve a
financial benefit for anyone. In other words, much of politics is
personal. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/books/review/subversives-by-seth-rose…; target="”_blank”">A
review in this weekend's New York <i>Times Book Review</i></a> got me
thinking about this. The book, by Seth Rosenfeld, is entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Subversives-Student-Radicals-Reagans-Power/dp/037…; target="”_blank”"><i>Subversives</i></a>;
the reviewer is Matt Taibbi.<br>
<br>
Rosenfeld spent thirty years getting hold of FBI files on its
surveillance of the University of California at Berkeley, especially
in the 1960s. What is apparent is how much of the policy behind this
surveillance originated not in the public interest of preventing
Communist infiltration of Berkeley's important scientific
laboratories, but rather in petty, personal attempts to seek
revenge. For example, thirty agents were assigned to find out who
had written an entrance exam question about the FBI that J. Edgar
Hoover found offensive (this was in 19<b>5</b>9!).<br>
<br>
Or, as the reviewer writes, the book highlights "the vanity and
stupidity of political leaders of any persuasion who squander public
resources spying on personal enemies and obsessing over personal
hangups — and the frightening weakness of the laws designed to
restrain their authority."<br>
<br>
It isn't just that allowing politics to be personal leads to ethical
misconduct. Ethical misconduct requires that politics be personal.
Ethical misconduct requires secrecy, circling the wagons,
intimidation, dishonesty, denials, and personal attacks on anyone
seen to be capable of making the misconduct public or getting the
public to understand what is wrong with it.<br>
<br>
Ethical misconduct is often fire that, even though it is behind
closed doors, is seen by the public only in the form of smoke. But
the smoke isn't from the fire, at least not directly. It's a smokescreen to hide the fact
that there is a fire. It's a smokescreen intended to make it look
like the fire is somewhere else. And the smokescreen can be
especially effective when those spreading the smoke truly believe it
<i>is</i> somewhere else.<br>
<br>
To those involved in creating a cover-up, it can
seem like an honest crusade against a horrific enemy. This is what
happens when politics becomes personal. It's not just about keeping
secrets. It's also about justifying one's actions and those of one's
colleagues and supervisors, that is, those who will determine one's
career. And demonizing those who threaten to bring you down. Cover-ups raise all sorts of ugly psychological processes.<br>
<br>
Ethical misconduct becomes more and more personal, more and more
justifiable, when people think it may be uncovered. And it places
pressure on others to engage in additional ethical misconduct. It
can be like a snowball rolling downhill, to the point where no
colleague has the courage to speak out even privately, or vote
independently. It makes everyone complicit, even those who are
merely trying to stay out of it.<br>
<br>
There is no staying out of it. There is only the self-justification
that it isn't one's responsibility. If one is a government official,
one has a duty not to stay out of it.<br>
<br>
In this way, ethical misconduct co-opts and corrupts others. This is
the worst thing about it. And it is why it is so important to have a
good, independent government ethics program, not just to enforce the
laws, but to stop the snowball from rolling downhill and to prevent
politicians from being able to create a smokescreen, or believe they
can. No ethics policy can do this. Only a full-fledged ethics
program can.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---