Posted March 14, 2008 by Meredith McGehee

Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much?

The news has been full of politics and ethics this week.  First, the crusading former prosecutor, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, was brought down because of his own moral failings – caught up in a prostitution ring very similar to the kind he aggressively prosecuted in his previous job.  Part of the shock regarding Spitzer is that he campaigned on a platform of cleaning up the ethics mess in Albany, and made ethics a central part of his campaign.   He joins a long line of promising politicians who were brought down by their sexual proclivities.

Then, the U.S. House of Representatives, twisting itself in knots while also twisting the arms of recalcitrant Members, voted to establish an Office of Congressional Ethics, a change in the ethics process promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the Democrats took over.  Following on the heels of the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Democrats made ethics a central part of their campaign and gained control of the U.S. Congress.  But others aren’t convinced that emphasizing ethics is either worthwhile public policy or at least good politics.  Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has protested the new Office, threatening to withhold Republican appointments because he doesn’t like how the vote on the Office was conducted.  Rep. Boehner has never made ethics a central part of his campaign, and at one point in the Abramoff mess called the focus on ethics “childish.”

All of this back and forth on ethics is again a demonstration on why the intersection of ethics and politics is difficult and potentially explosive, but also much more powerful than many politicians and pundits wish to acknowledge.  Disgust with the scandal surrounding uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff played a large role in the Democrats seizing power in Congress.  The fact was not lost on the freshman class who has continually pushed for more broad-reaching reforms.  And the new Republican Governor (and recent Congressman) Bobby Jindal of Louisiana campaigned on cleaning up his state’s notorious reputation as uniquely ethically challenged, and has already started off his tenure by presenting an ethics package .

Still, as this week’s close vote in the U.S. House revealed, there remain many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who are charter members with Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) in the “total crap caucus.”  Rep. Murtha is the long-time appropriations pork king who called the focus on strengthening congressional ethics standards “total crap.”  The “total crap caucus” takes the view that the public cares more about Members bringing home the bacon than with whom they have lunch or dinner and who pays.  It is also no shock that the charter Members of this “caucus” also tend to represent politically safe districts, thus being able to minimize the importance of ethics rules and avoid voter backlash

Strong ethics rules for elected officials are needed NOT because politicians are especially corrupt or corruptible.  They are needed because these leaders are just like the rest of us – human beings who have failings, weaknesses and flaws.  Sure, politicians often have outsized egos that make them particularly susceptible to arrogance and the need for power.  But they aren’t the only ones who fit that profile among the human race. 

The reason that it is important to have strong ethics rules for Members of Congress is not because they are worse than the rest of us, but rather they reflect us as a people – they indeed “represent” us.  Yet, they are in unique positions of power – power that gives them the ability to determine in many ways how the rest of us live. .  In the face of abuse and provocation, we expect a police officer to show greater restraint than the average person because the police officer carries a gun and is given the power and a greater latitude by society to take a life with that gun.

A similar logic applies to politicians.  We elect politicians in the hope that they will pursue for the benefit of the rest of us a course of wisdom and fairness.  Our democracy is based on a “hope”, if you will, that our elected representatives will do their utmost to set aside the normal instinct for selfishness and instead will search for the common good.  That is not an easy task for any person, much less a person whose chosen career path requires him or her to often act selfishly to win a campaign.

Politicians are especially vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy, particularly when it comes to ethics.  The field they’ve chosen often requires them to make categorical statements and take “yes” or “no” positions.  Nuance and gray areas don’t usually lead to success in politics.  But much of life is nuanced, even if politics isn’t.

People like Eliot Spitzer are elected to be leaders.  We expect much from our leaders and hope that they will lead us as a nation down a path of righteousness and wisdom.  His fall should serve as a reminder to elected leaders everywhere that despite the sycophants following them around and the people approaching them on bended knee, they too are human.  That message has been largely lost on Congress, despite the scandals, convictions, indictments and ongoing investigations that have touched so many Members.  Opponents of the any sort outsider involvement in the ethics process were widely quoted, both on and off the record, saying in essence that as Members of Congress they had no peers and could only judge themselves.  Such supreme self-delusion only promises more hard falls to come.

And if you haven't seen it, be sure to read David Brooks' column on the political class in today's the New York Times.