Government Ethics and the Clash Between Rules-Based and Ends-Based Ethical Approaches
The most serious obstacle to the acceptance of conflict of interest
programs in government is the clash between government ethics' use of a
rules-based (deontological) ethical approach, and government officials'
use of an ends-based (teleological) ethical approach.<br>
<br>
It's not that these two approaches necessarily require different values
or decisions, it's that they don't speak the same language, and they
judge each other by different standards. In addition, the ends-based
approach is easily distorted to make ethical reasoning a worthless
bother compared with all the technological, economic, social, and
strategic reasoning going on.<br>
<br>
In government, doing a good job means getting the best result for the
most number of citizens. How you get there matters far less than the
result. The process and the rules are things to be taken
advantage of, to use, even abuse, in order to get the most for your
constituents or to get the result you want (for example, more power or
great consulting opportunities when your political career is over). The
ends don't simply justify the means, they often determine them.<br>
<br>
This is how government officials are judged. A council member who uses her power, and skillfully manipulates the rules, to get a grant for
her neighborhood is considered effective, by both peers and
constituents, even if the contract goes to her sister's firm. A council member who does not use his power or skillfully manipulate the rules, so that the
grant goes to another neighborhood, is considered ineffective (and
his brother won't be happy about it, either).<br>
<br>
Government ethics is all about rules and means and process, doing the
right thing, putting the public interest ahead of one's own private
interests. The result doesn't matter. The means is the end.<br>
<br>
But government ethics is judged, and it has to be promoted, on the
basis of the ends it accomplishes. And those are not nearly as clear as
the basic values that are espoused. Yes, when private interests come
first, taxpayers usually pay more or get less for their money. But how
much? And how hard it is to prove!<br>
<br>
Yes, citizens will not feel that their interests are important in a
government where business associates get the contracts, relatives get
the jobs, and information is hard to find. They will participate less,
have less trust in government, and give government officials low ratings
in the polls. But they'll still vote for incumbents, still pay their
taxes, and the fewer people who attend meetings, the easier it is to
govern.<br>
<br>
When businesses with interests that government can further are allowed to give
politicians large gifts and campaign contributions, their ends will
more likely take precedence over those without the interests and the
money to promote them. But these businesses have on their side so many
resources that anyone with an ends-based
ethical approach will see that they will get around any rule the
government ethics world can get passed. For people with ends-based
ethics, this sort of rules-based ethics is a game played with unequal
resources and information. It's unwinnable (its end is impossible), and therefore not worth the
bother. <br>
<br>
What it really comes down to is not the type of ethical approach, but
the way the approach is used. Those with honest ends-based ethical
reasoning truly do what they feel is best for their constituents, what
they were elected to do, not what is best for themselves or their
friends or campaign contributors. They will
steer clear of conflicts of interest, and will recuse themselves
whenever there is even an appearance of impropriety, because they
understand and respect the end of earning the public's trust.<br>
<br>
I dealt more concretely with the clash between these two forms of
ethical reasoning in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/364" target="”_blank”">a
blog entry</a> on the commercial bond system that can be found in many
part of the U.S., but hardly anywhere else.<br>
<br>
How do we get these two ethical approaches talking to each other?
First, it is important to understand that the two approaches usually come to
the same conclusion when the underlying values are the same. When the
end is considered in terms of constituents, it's hard to argue in favor
of an end that benefits family members, friends, business associates,
lobbyists, or campaign contributors to the detriment of others. It's
especially in setting priorities, balancing who is benefited and how
important that benefit is to the community, that values take form.<br>
<br>
But it is those with power who set a community's priorities. It is hard
to be involved with setting priorities unless you do what it takes to
get that power. And once you've made the necessary compromises, once
you've set power as an important end, it is hard to stop thinking
strategically and instead to focus on ends that benefit the community.<br>
<br>
John McCain is a perfect example of the clash between these ethical
approaches. His career was nearly ended by a conflict of interest
scandal. He survived and devoted himself to changing federal conflict
of interest rules, with a focus on campaign finance laws and the use of
soft money (that is, large contributions not given directly to a
candidate, but spent in support of the candidate). Party leaders
shunned him for this, manifesting a stark contrast of values.<br>
<br>
But once he needed party support to allow him to accept public
financing, which the party would greatly supplement, McCain switched
from a rules-based ethics to an ends-based ethics, surrounding himself
with lobbyists and raising enormous amounts of soft money for the
national and state party committees to support his candidacy, adapting
some of his policy positions to the party platform. Sadly, this change calls
into question how rules-based his approach was in the first place.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---