Book Review: Emil "Bud" Krogh, Integrity
It took a long time for Egil "Bud" Krogh to write his book on
Watergate, but it finally came out a few months ago.<br>
<br>
Krogh is not one of the better known Watergaters, partly because he
pleaded guilty to his crimes. But as the head of the Plumbers, in
charge of investigating leaks to the press, he oversaw the break-in of
the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. For years he has been
giving lectures on ethics, a program he calls the <a href="http://budkrogh.com/index.shtml" target="”_blank”">Integrity Zone</a> (and his
book is entitled <span>Integrity</span>).<br>
<br>
Krogh's book has two central lesson for local government ethics, one
about loyalty, the other about certainty.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/446">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>
<br>
<br>
<span>Loyalty</span><br>
John Ehrlichman was not only a family friend and a fellow Christian
Scientist, but a surrogate father after the death of Krogh's father
when Krogh was 22. Krogh went to work for Ehrlichman's law firm.
Krogh's career was too closely tied with another man's, and he felt a
loyalty strong enough to override his values. He brought this loyalty
into a White House that was happy to take advantage of it.<br>
<br>
Nixon became another father figure, and in Krogh's relationship with
him, patriotism and loyalty combined in a dangerous cocktail. "It
seemed at the very least presumptuous, if not unpatriotic, for me to
inquire into just what the significance of national security was in
those two leaks. For me to suggest that national security was
being improperly invoked would've been to invite a confrontation
between patriotism and loyalty."<br>
<br>
But, as Krogh notes, Nixon confused in his own mind the personal (his
political survival) with the idea of national security. Loyalty to
oneself, one could call it.<br>
<br>
Krogh later came to the realization that "this kind of absolute loyalty
lacked integrity, ... because it was unbalanced and too exclusive. ...
loyalty to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to moral and ethical
requirements should have been key factors in my decisions as well."<br>
<br>
Krogh also came to realize that a place where loyalty reigns is an
adversarial climate of us versus them, which allows any action to be
justified.<br>
<br>
<span>Certainty</span><br>
Krogh had seen Nixon's uncovering of the truth about Hiss as a heroic
endeavor, as a noble act. He felt the same way about Ellsberg as
he did about Hiss: a betrayer of America. But, Krogh writes, "I
overlooked one point in both cases: there was no doubt in
Nixon's mind that the man in question was a traitor, long before there
was any actual proof."<br>
<br>
The Ellsberg break-in was done with the same attitude of unquestioning
certainty: "We did not analyze any of the potential consequences of
this operation." It simply had to be done, and that was that. They
needed a way to delegitimize Ellsberg.<br>
<br>
Krogh felt that "groupthink had infected the decisionmaking of the
Plumbers' unit. ... We accepted the description of the threat without
question, and we did not question each other on the rightness of the
break-in or its necessity."<br>
<br>
<span>Integrity</span><br>
This combination of loyalty and certainty is typical at all levels of
government. Those who are certain of their stands tend to attract (and
expect) loyalty, and having a loyal following makes officials more
certain of the rightness of their views and their actions. It's an
unholy circle that doesn't always lead to a Watergate, but does always
undermine a governmental organization's ethical environment. It
effectively acts as a replacement for personal integrity, for taking
responsibility for one's own actions, for recogizing or caring about conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
What is most important to Krogh is that he eventually took
responsibility for what he did. He pled guilty, did time, and was
suspended from legal practice for several years. And he is trying to
teach others, including government officials, the importance of taking
responsibility for what they do. He notes that when you take a federal
position, you get a certificate that says, "Reposing special trust in
the integrity of [official's name]." It's this "zone of integrity" that
he feels officials need to perform safely and successfully.<br>
<br>
He specifically notes "the need for the lawyers on the president's
staff to constantly ask the question: is it legal?" This is a
question all government lawyers should ask every day, although I think
they should also ask, is it ethical? Or as Krogh suggests, "Is my
decision whole and complete?"<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>