There’s Less Dirt, but More Stink : Scandals Seem to Grow Because We Expect More, Ethically

The kinds of political improprieties that make today’s front pages, Mayor Tom Bradley’s being only the latest, would not have been stories 10 or even 5 years ago. Today, we are challenging conduct that seems minor compared to the scandals that used to make headlines.

With all the press attention on ethics and scandals, it is easy to believe that ethics in government is at a new low. In fact, it is better than it ever was. Because of new laws and a heightened level of press scrutiny and public awareness, there is less out-and-out corruption, less influence-peddling, less patronage and less use of office for personal gain.

This is not to minimize the importance of contemporary scandals, nor to ignore the fact that there is still plenty of serious wrongdoing. But it suggests a more positive perspective.

Today, we expect more from our public officials than simply avoiding illegal acts. We expect them to consistently honor the time-worn but often-ignored principles of public trust.

In this changing environment, it should be no surprise that victims of stricter enforcement are crying foul. Almost none of them seem to believe that they have done anything wrong. They believe that the rules of the game are being changed erratically and without fair notice by a hostile press and a fickle public.

Bradley’s reaction to charges developed by the press and documented to some extent by the city attorney’s report is, in many ways, typical. Although he insists that he did not violate the public trust, he does not dispute the essential facts: He had some inappropriate financial arrangements that cast doubt on his judgment and independence, and he failed to comply with disclosure rules regarding investments and income. Still, like former Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, he claims exoneration based on the city attorney’s conclusion that none of his acts justified criminal prosecution.

The mayor is not alone in believing that he is being persecuted by a new spirit of moralism. Jim Wright, the former Speaker of the House, claims that his conduct was not only perfectly legal, he also maintains that it was no different from the kind of rule-pushing strategies prevalent throughout politics and society in general. Former Rep. Tony Coehlo’s financial dealings and technical violations of disclosure rules are probably not so unusual. And John Tower of Texas is certainly not unique for having an alcohol problem and a high level of interest in women.

There is some validity in the transgressors’ claim that they were caught doing what others have done, and are still doing, undetected. But this reasoning is no justification. It has always been wrong for a guardian of the public trust to compromise the office by conduct, public or private, that impugns the integrity of government.

What has changed, then, is not the standard of public trust. It is the environment of scrutiny and the tools of detection and enforcement.

Laws have steadily evolved to govern areas previously the domain of personal discretion. Outright prohibitions and disclosure rules have provided easier-to-apply standards and more information for a growing army of investigative journalists who take seriously their role as public watchdogs. They are ferreting out and exposing practices that always were questionable, if not always demonstrably wrong.

The fact is we have a double standard of ethics in this country: one applied by the press and the public to government officials, the other the standard that government officials apply to themselves.

The standard that public officials apply to themselves is narrow and legalistic--conduct is ethical so long as it is legal. But the press/public standard is now more rigorous. It insists that government officials treat their offices as a public trust by avoiding any official or private conduct that either casts doubt on their ability to exercise public authority impartially and fairly, or that raises substantial questions as to their fitness for leadership.

Any use of office for private gain or demonstration of bias, prejudice or favoritism violates the first dimension of the standard. The second dimension assumes that our leaders should set an example for the citizenry by scrupulously obeying laws and behaving so as to generate respect, pride, confidence and trust in their government.

Clearly, it is the public standard that must and will prevail. This means that persons in public service, and sometimes members of their families, must now accept the fact that virtually all public actions, and many private ones, will be subject to examination and criticism. No good-faith claim of exoneration can be made simply because there is no prosecutable crime. Reliance on the customs and traditions of a loosely permissive, insular environment controlled by insiders is no longer possible. And, overall, that’s a good thing.