Laura Bramble
THE RED MENACE
Another One Bites the Dust...
This is the fourth Obama nominee that has been dogged by the stain of bad ethical choices. Nancy Killefer, Tom Daschle, and Tim Geithner have all been proven to have cheated on taxes in order to pocket more money, with Killefer and Daschle choosing (or being privately asked) to step down from their respective Cabinet nominations. I am left with several questions. First is, doesn't anybody do their job when vetting these people? Second is, has this sort of ethically challenged person been nominated all along, but everybody in Washington overlooked it? Third is, is Washington so filled with crooks and phonies that it is next to impossible to find anyone qualified to take these posts who is not ethically challenged or has not broken the rules?
One does have to wonder about the vetting process, not just by Obama's staff but by anyone in Washington. Look at the Sarah Palin vice presidential nomination. How could it be a "shock" that her teenage daughter was pregnant? Anyone who looked at her could tell. And in a small political arena such as Alaska, Troopergate could not have been much of a secret. Yet the John McCain campaign officials acted as if they knew nothing. Why is the press and the political opposition, who uncovered all of these recent ethical issues, more thorough than those charged with investigating the backgrounds of these candidates and nominees? I would have thought that after the first embarrassment with Geithner that Obama's people would have gone through their files again with a fine tooth comb and gone deeper in their background checks in order to be sure there were no more unpleasant surprises. Especially with Daschle and Killefer, whose tax fraud was the same problem that dogged Geithner and is part of public record.
I also have to wonder if this sort of ethical lapse is common among nominees, because the people who are suited for these jobs are required to be decisive and driven. They don't let "minor details" stand in their way. I, for one, don't find ethics to be a "minor detail", but I have never been in charge of securing the greater good. Maybe it requires an ability to overlook some things to ensure others. Maybe the people who are suited for these jobs have to be so strong willed to the point of egocentricity to the point that they just don't see it as wrong to have an ethical lapse on "non-essential" issues. I don't know. But you have to wonder how many of our past Cabinet officials and politicians had these kind of ethical lapses and that everyone in Washington knew about them, but let them slide? After all, Obama and others in Washington expressed their regrets about losing Daschle for the post of head of Health and Human Services because he was uniquely qualified for the job and would have been highly effective. If no one on the outside had blown the whistle, would everyone have looked the other way and passed him through, because, in their mind, his qualifications and suitability was more important than his ethical track record? How often has this happened in the past?
Asking these last two questions, one other thought arises. How many politicians would overlook these issues because they are doing, or have done, the same sort of thing and either don't think it's wrong or don't want to condemn and draw attention to another who has done the same as they? Are ethical lapses so common in Washington that it is no big deal to them, just a part of doing business? I have to believe that this is so to a degree. Just by their power and position, those in Washington are faced with ethical dilemmas that few of us will face and they are just as human. Would we really act any differently if we were in their place? We would like to think we would, but really, would we? If we were convinced that no one would get hurt nor would find out, how would a little cheat here or a "compromise" there be truly wrong if 90-95% of the time you did your job and looked out for the public interest? Faced with these challenges, is anyone is Washington clean? Is it even possible? Can one be truly "clean" and still be effective? The one politician that nearly everyone can agree was morally and ethically clean is Jimmy Carter. While, to be honest, he did inherit a very difficult fiscal situation and public relations nightmare (post-Watergate cynicism), even his fans have to admit that he was not a particularly effective president. Does a preson like President Carter have the odds stacked against him from the get-go because he is too moral and ethical? And if so, given the choice, should we chose effectiveness and integrity when and where it counts over absolute integrity?
Before the next election, we need to look and think about these questions. It is not fair to expect a politician to live up to conflicting standards. We can not, and should not, expect more from them than we expect from ourselves when we are given less temptation. Nor is it right to expect them to "get things done" when we tie their hands on the methods they can use to accomplish the tasks we outline for them. We can't condemn them for voting for "pork projects" and then turn around and write our local Congressman asking for government funding for some local concern. We can't ask them to fight the dirty fight and then vilify them because they got caught with mud on their shoes. If we want our politicians to be "clean", ethical, and moral, then we need to watchdog everything they do, be willing to sacrifice our own local interest for what is best for our country, and to not ask or expect a politician to ever "bend the rules" in order to get something done. Morals and ethics are a slippery slope and can be subjective; a very fine line separates right from wrong. We cannot ask or allow our representatives to edge too close to that fine line if we want to ensure they stay on the right side of it.
Are we willing, as an electorate, to do all this work? So far we haven't. We have gotten what our lack of attention and oversight has allowed. We have gotten the Washington we deserve, for better or for worse. We have asked for results without examining how those results were achieved. If we don't like what has been done to get them, what are we going to do about it?
Laura Bramble
Political Simpleton
Home
The Red Menace
Share this column
TODAY'S NEWS * YESTERDAY'S NEWS * POLITICS