Ethics and Elected Officials

This week I’ve had some time to reflect on ethics and public officials. I will be the first to admit that politics isn’t my thing. I am frustrated with the polarization that takes place in our contemporary political environment.  I don’t have cable TV and could not care less about most of the talking heads and the 24-hour a day news stations!

I think most of my apathy comes from frustration that nothing ever seems to get done when all of the time spent discussing politics and politicians is spent looking at the negative. I think individuals end up spending their time on the defense instead of working on anything. Politicians – especially presidents – have been defined by the unethical choices they make. I am in no way excusing this behavior or poor choices, but suggesting that a little more attention be paid to the good choices folks are making and the good things happening as a result of those choices. (I also recognize that having this attitude is sometimes used as an excuse for people to do nothing and not be involved in the process. I am involved – but choose to spend the majority of my time and energy elsewhere.)

I do think that an interesting statement was made in the reading about ethics and elected officials I did this week. The idea stated is that technically a broken promise is not the same thing as a lie but “promise keeping” is an important principle and breaking a promise suggests one is untrustworthy. The qualification made was that if the promise is broken because of something out of the promise-makers control, it is not a lie, but if is broken for no good reason, it is a lie.

Kind of reminds of the difference in the church’s understanding of sins of “omission” and sins of “commission.” Sometimes we do “wrong” by doing and sometimes we do “wrong” by not doing. 

Also reminds of a time when I was about 9 years old. My brother and I had been messing with each other while my grandmother was watching. He is two years younger than I am and was an easy target at the time. I took something from his room and ran to the end of the hall with it. He came running after me and as he got hear me I held up one leg and he ran directly into my foot at an inopportune place! He began crying and saying I had kicked him. I tried to reason with my grandmother and tell her that I had not kicked him – that he had run into my foot. My grandmother in her infinite wisdom helped me understand that in that moment, what technically happened did not matter. What mattered was that my brother was hurt and that it had happened because of a choice I made. If I remember correctly I spent the rest of the night in my room thinking about that choice alone with no one or nothing to play with!

I do understand the above statement and sentiment about the difference between breaking promises and directly lying – and I do understand that sometimes promises are made with the best intention of keeping them and aren’t kept by no fault of the promise-maker – so the distinction is necessary. I also understand that sometimes people use those “qualifications” and grey areas to get away with things that aren’t right.

It was interesting this week to also read about and consider the Rickertt v. Public Disclosure Commission case. Read more about the case here: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003924720_webfirstamendment04m.html and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickert_v._Public_Disclosure_Commission

Obviously I support the first amendment and our right to free speech. So on the surface I understand that yes, political candidates have the right to say whatever they like in the process of campaigning. I am disappointed in the fact that many times this includes small untruths and even blatant lies. This leaves the people not the government to be the final arbiters of truth – which ultimately I agree with – I just wish was not necessary.

As I have mentioned before, often ethics is not considered until after a blatant or very public violation. I did however appreciate the mention of moral criteria scholars have developed that can be considered reasonably expected from politicians. (This list is found in the chapter on Ethics and Elected Officials in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Public-Service-Individual-Institutional-Responsibilites/dp/1452274134 )

Integrity – having incorruptible honesty, playing by the rules, not being unduly influenced by friendship and family in conducting affairs of the government, leading by example

Civility – respecting one’s coworkers, displaying sportsmanlike conduct

Upholding principles – drawing on one’s religious or philosophical moral values, taking the high road, following one’s convictions, avoiding judgment of one’s opponents

Sincerity – being forthright, avoiding hypocrisy and cynicism, not having a hidden agenda

Political sensitivity – seeking the good of the nation as a whole, responding to the needs of all citizens, showing compassion to those in need, being concerned about issues and problems

Honor – acting to bring credit and worth to one’s work, profession, and institution

Conviction – having strong and consistent beliefs and the courage to stand by one’s values while being open to new information and change where warranted

Michael Josephson suggested “The Six Pillars of Character” to include:

• trustworthiness
• respect
• responsibility
• fairness
• caring
• citizenship. 

It is suggested that these core values – with those listed above – can be used as a yardstick for gauging the ethical behavior of elected and appointed officials.

It would be nice to see this yardstick used more often and not only by political opponents trying to make others look bad! How could we as a people demand this kind of standard be used to judge ethical behavior? How can we reward ethical behavior? How can have more positive stories? How can we discourage the glamorization of the unethical when it comes to elected officials?