Why Hilary Krieger Is Wrong About City Machines

Update: April 3, 2014 (see below)

Every so often, someone comes along and says, What's so bad about government officials' ethical misconduct? Isn't it worth having ethical misconduct if it means an effective government?

This time it's Hilary Krieger, a Washington Post editor, who recently made the argument in an op-ed piece in her own newspaper, which has been reproduced in others. Unusually, her argument focuses on local government, on the current D.C. mayor in fact (see my recent blog post about some of the allegations against him).

Krieger asks, "Is it really in voters’ best interests to disqualify candidates, no matter the good they’ve done, because of a corruption scandal or two?" Immediately, she says that most voters don't think so.

But is this the right question to ask? Is it a matter of disqualifying candidates or is it, instead, a matter of uncovering their misconduct and sanctioning them for it? The voting booth is not the only place, or even the best place, to deal with misconduct. As Krieger acknowledges, cases such as the mayor's "are often viewed [by the public] as politics as usual; plus, they can be too convoluted for the public to easily follow."

The District of Columbia's leaders believe that misconduct should be dealt with by the District's government ethics program or by District or federal law enforcement. That is why they have greatly improved the ethics program in recent years.

I think the right question is, Is it really in the best interests of a community to allow its fiduciaries to use their offices to benefit themselves, those with whom they have special relationships, and those seeking special benefits from the government who are willing to personally benefit those fiduciaries?

An economics professor, of all people, is quoted as saying, “You’ll deter a lot of good people if they feel the rules about misbehavior are both overly extensive and arbitrary.” Actually, you won't deter anyone if you tell people they have the opportunity to get free, professional, independent advice that will prevent them from getting in trouble. Why, when people criticize ethics laws, do they never mention ethics advice? Because it would destroy their arguments.

From Individuals to Institutions
There is no doubt that loss of office is not an appropriate sanction for most individuals who have engaged in ethical misconduct. I can agree with Krieger on that. But Krieger goes on to defend machines, that is, institutionalized forms of corruption. She starts by quoting Jonathan Rauch: "When you take away the tools that lend themselves to corruption, you also take away the tools that make it possible to govern. Something like what Christie’s people did looks more like traditional machine politics, which is ugly, unfair, corrupt and arguably sometimes necessary.”

Krieger adds, "Those unfair and corrupt practices — such as favoring certain groups and intimidating dissenters — are precisely the ones that can build a base of loyal followers and that can be necessary for getting results in a fractious system. Which, in turn, can encourage constituents to look past some unsavoriness."

There is no doubt that machines have done great things for some cities. But that does not mean that it takes a machine to do something valuable for a community. There are many thriving cities and counties that do not have machines, that have never had a machine or have replaced one with a council-manager form of government, whose officials have not favored those who have offered them gifts and large contributions, who have not intimidated anyone, and yet have loyal followers and get results.

In any event, the question should be asked, Do voters have an obligation not "to look past some unsavoriness," when this means a government ethics environment based on fear and unfairness, which is borne not by voters, but by those who work in the government, that is, who work for the community? I think they have such an obligation.

Different Philosophical Schools
What Krieger is doing, without stating it or maybe even realizing it, is making a consequentialist, ends-based ethics argument, what is known popularly as "the ends justify the means." Government ethics supporters tend to make deontological arguments, which are rules-based. Essentially, Krieger is making a circular argument: rules shouldn't matter because they are the means, and it is only the ends that matter.

Rules have a purpose, especially with respect to government officials. Because government officials govern their community and spend its money, they have special, fiduciary obligations, which can only be stated in the form of public rules, in order to provide guidance and to allow enforcement. When officials do not fulfill these obligations or even ask for advice on what to do, the rules are enforced against them.

Machines Are Rules-Based, Too
Actually, machines also run by rules, but they are unwritten rules. Not only are they enforced, often harshly and usually secretly, but they deter most "good people" from working for the government, far more than ethics rules do. If those who run machines truly believed that the public was okay with corruption, why don't they make their rules public? Why do they hate transparency as much as vampires hate the sun?

Krieger wants the public to be the final arbiter of rules it doesn't even know. How can this possibly be done? She appears to prefer effective governments to effective voters.

One can even make an ends-based argument for the enforcement of ethics rules. Machines sometimes do a lot of good, but they often undermine the good by greatly increasing the cost of contracts and decreasing the quality of the work, by hiring people who often have no qualifications and sometimes do little or nothing, by spending money where contractors want it rather than where community needs are, etc. And machines also do good at the price of public trust and citizen participation (it's very hard to get people to sit on District boards, and it isn't because the city's ethics program has improved).

But the best argument for rules-based, ethical government is that it is consistent with the values of our democracy. It needs to be recognized that when officials who have engaged in serious ethical misconduct are re-elected, it is partially because many people have decided it's not worth voting at all. Some of that silence is the only vote people feel they can make against what they perceive as institutional corruption. That's what many people mean when they say they're disgusted with politics.

An effective government ethics program may mean the loss of some effective leaders. But those who truly care about the community will become effective leaders in another capacity. And truly effective leaders will learn to seek ethics advice before acting, and to create a healthy ethics environment that will make it easier for them and for others to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the public. A community can have its cake and ethical officials, too.

Also see Meredith McGehee's response to the Krieger op-ed.

Update: April 3, 2014
As it turns out, the voters did declare their belief that the mayor should be disqualified due to the scandal, and did it in two ways: by voting him out in the primary this week, and voting in very small numbers. I note this not because this was the only reason the mayor lost the primary, not because I agree that the mayor deserved to lose, and not because I think voting an official out is the best way to enforce ethics laws. I note this because it's impossible to say what voters will do, and this is another reason why ethics enforcement at the polls is a blunt instrument that can miss its target or cause unnecessary harm.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---