Ethics Attacks and Ethics Reform

Meredith McGehee wrote<a href="http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=399…;
a thought-provoking Campaign Legal Center blog post yesterday</a> about
the upside of election time ethics attacks on opponents.<br>
<br>
"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.<br>
<br>

<b>Does the Prospect of Attacks Cause Politicians to Better Police Themselves?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Does the Public Care About Government Ethics Issues?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---