Summer Reading: Corruption and American Politics IV - Wayne Le Cheminant's Essay

<br>The fourth essay in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Corruption-American-Politics-Michael-Genovese/dp/…; target="”_blank”"><i>Corruption and American Politics</i></a>, an essay collection edited by Michael
A. Genovese and Victoria A. Farrar-Meyers (Cambria, 2011), is by
Wayne S. Le Cheminant. The title of the essay – "Bending
the Frame to Corrupt the Lenses" – provides a good
picture of his fascinating approach to government ethics.<br>
<br>
Le Cheminant begins by noting that "corruption is generally seen as a degeneration of that ideal form
of politics in which those trusted with power are to do the will of
the people." But what is most important to him is perspective:

<blockquote>

The ways in which the polity, in general, comes to believe the
stories told to them by politicians is a very important part of the
story of how the polity perceives and deals with corruption.</blockquote>

Le Cheminant believes that how corruption is
presented by politicians is very important.<blockquote>

[C]orruption has a great deal to do with how politicians
manipulate the very language of corruption to create a
favorable playing field so that their acts will generally
appear to be legitimate. … Given the manner in which our brains
work, … corruption is far more likely to accelerate in a
contemporary society since information can be manipulated to benefit
public officials.</blockquote>

By determining the frames through which we see corruption, officials
can manage our expectations and effectively protect themselves
against accusations of corruption. "I have the community's best
interests at heart" and "I've done so much for the community," they
say. Or "I was just doing constituent services." Or "I followed the
law," even though they voted for or even drafted the law, or failed
to create or improve an ethics program (an alternate version is, "I
was not found guilty," even when the reason is procedural or due to
a settlement). And there's the ever-popular "Everyone does it,"
which is really a statement that the conduct is a norm in the ethics
environment, and that the speaker has done nothing to oppose it
because it works for him personally.<br>
<br>
In fact, the term "ethical misconduct" (Le Cheminant uses the term
"corruption") "becomes a mere rhetorical tool that can be used to
describe a host of bad acts." Nothing is abused as much as the
definition of ethical misconduct.<br>
<br>
How is this corruption of how we view ethical misconduct accomplished? Le Cheminant provides six ways in which
the process works. One, because "experience is merely the rewiring
of our brains through new synaptic connections, it is the case that
we will take the truth to be what we hear over and over again." Our
connections are strengthened by repetition (this is true for humor
as well as for propaganda – think <i>Seinfeld</i> or, for older folks, <i>Laugh In</i>).<br>
<br>
Two, "politicians can count on using a variety of metaphors to which
we respond in order to bend the frames of experience." The most important metaphors used to obscure government ethics are law and rights. They are used so successfully that few question them.<br>
<br>
Three, we are
"wired" toward empathy and, therefore, "believe those we 'know' we
can trust because we have a 'gut feeling' about the person." (And
citizens trust their representatives more than anyone else's.)<br>
<br>
Four, we "believe that people and things are imbued within a central
core that cannot be broken or altered." They are either "good" or
"bad." It's hard for us to accept contradictory information. Five is
"reciprocal altruism," which means that we "trust others as if we
have reason to because we do something for them, like vote them
into office, and they seem to do something for us, like feel our
pain or understand" our hardships. In politics, there is a serious
asymmetry to this relationship.<br>
<br>
Six, we believe what we feel, not what we know.<br>
<br>
Since most people feel they can tell whether a politician is honest
or not, and believe that character is what matters with respect to
ethical misconduct, politicians always portray themselves as honest
and tend to do what they can to limit information about their
actions and motives, so that the public has as little as possible to
go on. Since there is limited coverage of local politics, except in
blogs that are often strident and not believed (or even read or
discussed) by the community, it is not difficult to do this.<br>
<br>
This is why it is so important to counter the individual character
aspect of what Le Cheminant calls the "traditional story of
corruption." It actually gives unethical politicians more power. In
fact, they are the people most capable of misusing an ethics program
to portray their opponents as unethical. If the issue was not
character but the norms of the ethics environment, the possibilities
of temptation, the definitions and limitations of roles, formal
procedures and oversight, government ethics could be treated like
any other institutional issue. But it is not, Le Cheminant believes,
in the interest of politicians to normalize government ethics.<br>
<br>
Le Cheminant asks an important question about the typical approach
to government ethics:  "Why [do] we care so much about the
intention of actors in general and the politicians specifically"? It
is caring about people's intentions that allows politicians not only
to criminalize ethics, making it very hard to convict, but also
allows them to talk about intentions (and therefore character)
rather than about conduct, obligations, transparency, and the like.
Talk about character is easy to manipulate. Talk about the other
things is much harder to manipulate, much harder, as Le Cheminant
would say, to bend the frame and corrupt the lense through which we
view our local officials' behavior.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---