Ethics Relativity
In Dems Should Dump Ethically Challenged Harry Reid the case is made that Senator Reid has personally benefited from favors in exchange for promoting special interest legislation.
I suspect that with enough investigation many legislators may be guilty of promoting self serving policy. And it would be appropriate for their constituents to vote them out of office as ethically challenged. But this is just not likely. Graft is an inevitable consequence of wielding great power and influence over the treasury. The best we can hope for is keeping the abuse relatively modest.
I am less concerned with Harry Reid’s scheme to make a few hundred thousand bucks off of a land deal than I am about the Billions made by Halliburton and others in no bid contracts in Iraq and Katrina. I am less concerned about a President lying about an affair than I am about lying to get us into war and causing the potential loss of millions of lives.
Political ethics are relative. So my hope and focus is on helping to elect those candidates who are incrementally more likely to support more rigorous ethics standards, more transparency, more competitive elections and more favoritism to the middle class. I hope it is that kind of candidate who is recruited by the Congressional campaign committees of both parties. How nice it would be to have a continuing competition between the parties to prove which is the least tolerant of self dealing.
9 Responses to “Ethics Relativity”
I do not accept the notion that graft is inevitable. We should not accept a weakening of ethical standards in any case. “The other guys are worse” is a poor argument.
There is a legitimate reason to have a no-bid contract: if the need is too pressing to wait for a bid process (if you haven’t done government contracting and bidding, you can’t possibly imagine how slow it is). A response to a natural disaster is certainly a legitimate reason to have a no-bid, and warfare is another. However, the review process for no-bid contracts after the fact needs to be very, very strict, and the contracts themselves should be transparent. One of the guiding principles for the process should be that because they’re getting the deal quickly, the company should commit to offering a particularly attractive price. That oversight and review process has not been as transparent as it should have been under the Bush administration (Clinton didn’t have that many sudden things happen for which no-bids would have been appropriate)
I’ve heard a lot of accusations of misdealings with regard to Halliburton (specifically, a nebulous reference to Cheney), but I’m not aware of any significant actual proof which has come out. If there is a case to be made there, it has not been made well.
You really freaking have to be kidding right? This post is tongue in cheek, right?
After the unmerciful assailing you left bloggers gave the right and republicans for their graft and corruption……….YOU KNOW want to GLOSS over and FORGIVE THE SAME EGREGIOUS ACTIVITY BY YOUR OWN PARTY.
I for one want to see “HARRY WE DEFEEATED THE PATRIOT ACT REID”
Let me finish the above post seeing as how it just seemed to post itself in the middle of a sentence.
I want to see Harry Reid burn with his Holier then Thou cousins. If they are corrupt then whats good for one is good for all.
I know you were kidding when you basically said……Fry the Republicans but its okay if Democrats are corrupt. I know you were kidding.
UIS Where was your outrage over Haserts similar ethics problems? Earmaks increase exponentially during the Republicants reign, give the Demoncrats 6 months before you shread more crocadile tears.
I don’t think of myself as left wing. I tend to hover around the center.
I would prefer that all lying, cheating, malfeasance and graft were eliminated from government. Yet I think it is unrealistic to sweep it all away particularly while large amounts of money are necessary to mount viable campaigns. This is why I am content to help elect candidates who move us in the right direct that reduces the influence of money in politics: non-partisan redistricting reform and public financing of elections.
But why then would you not want to condemn all abuses? Your never going to get the results you want if you make the ethical issues so nuanced.
I think the only way to make ethics issues stick is to use an outside body to bring and hear complaints. Having the congressional body police itself is worthless. No one even gets censured anymore, and members still serve after indictment and arrests. The ethics panels have equal numbers of representatives of each party, so neither side wants to get the other off on a partisan witchhunt. So the end result is usually a decision like the one in the Foley case. Before that (which Hastert was forced to turn over to the panel because of all of the media attention) the ethics committee sat idle, despite the Abramoff, Jefferson and Cunningham scandals.
Paul I would grant you the middle if I had not read this post that in my opinion is basically saying its okay to cheat a little…..especially when you happen to be a prominent Democrat.
You are way out in left field when it comes to this issue. Im sorry your words speak louder then your actions.
Oh and when Hastert was cheating………I was not even commenting on this blog. I was raising hello at a couple other blogs that was fun until they started trying to convince me it was okay to have Bigamy and polygamy in this country.