AmerCon : GOP : Ethics of Leadership

PolySci 2 / GOP / Ethics of Leadership

[January] The year is barely begun and the first order of business for the Republicans is to
lower ethics standards on the Hill. Could a single person be found in the entire country who
believes that ethics standards in Washington are too high?

A part of me struggles to understand why the column below by Paul Krugman is now
representative of today's Republican Party ethics. A part of me despairs that my country
supports this flight from ethics and moral values.

America's shame is not that an important thread of the national conversation is now
dominated by "hypocrites, cranks, and scoundrels." We all have a thread of arrogant
incompetent power within us and this shadow will probably always have a voice at the table
of American democracy.

America's shame is that she deliberately chooses this voice as her highest voice. She
chooses this as the voice of her own governance.

Psychologically, the desire for a powerful and resolute King is the desire for consciousness
and internal order projected onto the outer world.

But as the prophet Samuel warned the people of another time, it is not a King "out there" that
can bring you order, what must change is within us.

ehj2

New York Times
2005.01.07

Worse Than Fiction

By Paul Krugman

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be
any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be
hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and
writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling
habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be
hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One
senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant
about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who
turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside
for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the
elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position
of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with
anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in
particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress
criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even
bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of
good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks
and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an
environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a
Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending
the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right,
empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but
Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes,
President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani,
he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is,
professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days
among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral
values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away
with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the
world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be
a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have
realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee
homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did
he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected
newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want
to hear bad news about Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in
effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And
reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.
__________

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

///

Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice
and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the
Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in
search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere.

It's more fruitful now to look overseas. Last month Britain's highest court ruled that the
government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism
without charging or trying them. One of the justices wrote that such detentions "call into
question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been
very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."

That's a sentiment completely lost on an Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush.

                                               Bob Herbert
                                               New York Times / 2005.01.07
                                               Promoting Torture's Promoter