When did integrity take a back seat to self-interest? Once upon a time, a man’s word was his bond, and agreements were regularly sealed with a handshake. “The check is in the mail” was a reassuring statement, rather than the punch line of a joke, and one of the worst things that could be said was that a person could not be trusted. We expected our elected officials to be honest and forthright, and these qualities were paramount in casting our votes. Somewhere along the line, all of this seems to have changed.
In 1987, while seeking a fourth term as Louisiana’s governor, Edwin Edwards was defeated by Buddy Roemer in a contest with an “Anyone but Edwards” theme. Although Edwards had prevailed against indictments brought by U.S. Attorney John Volz, he was widely viewed as morally and ethically compromised. Yet four years later, as he ran against white-supremacist David Duke, Edwards benefited from an “Elect the Crook; It’s Important” campaign mantra, and was elected to a fourth term. There is no question that Louisiana voters were faced with a Hobson’s choice in 1991, but primary support put Edwards into the general election and created a choice that was not really a free choice. This happened because a certain portion of the population chose to ignore questions of integrity in the primary. Proving that where there’s smoke, there’s fire, Edwards was convicted of fraud and racketeering in 2002, and remains in federal prison today.
This trend was finally reversed in 1995 with the election of Mike Foster. In the intervening years, the governor’s mansion has been scandal-free. However, I’m not certain that integrity has regained its rightful place in our hierarchy of respect. For example, witness the ongoing federal trial of U.S. Congressman William Jefferson. Jefferson has been known as “Dollar Bill,” for many years, as he and some members of his family have been dogged by rumors of corruption. He was already under federal indictment when he last ran for the House of Representatives. Apparently, enough of his constituency felt that he delivered effective representation and that his lack of integrity was not a disqualifying factor; he won the Democratic primary before losing by three percentage points in the general election. Even if not convicted, the trial has exposed him as the worst sort of venal politician, using his position to gain wealth for himself, his family and his friends. Yet if he were to run again, he would be a formidable candidate; viz. Marion Barry’s enduring role in the District of Columbia’s government.
For many in Congress, the rule seems to be “if you can’t have integrity, then at least fake it.” Penitence is expressed by those who are exposed, leading one to wonder whether the regret is for having behaved dishonorably, or for having been exposed (no pun intended). As Thomas Babington Macaulay put it,” [t]he measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out.”
Congress is replete with examples of politicians whose stories change with the audience and the circumstances. For examples, look no further that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s lame non-explanations of her hypocrisy and demagoguery of the water-boarding issue, or House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s astonishing reversal of position on the Fannnie May/Freddie Mac housing finance debacle. These individuals have, in effect, told the voters that “I didn’t say that, and if I did, I didn’t mean it.” In other words, “if you can’t have integrity, then at least fake it.”
Responding to a groundswell of public support, the Louisiana Legislature in 2008 passed legislation to reform the state’s laws governing ethics in state government. By most independent accounts, Louisiana is now ranked near the top nationally in state ethics laws, and an unqualified number one in financial disclosure. Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon has done yeoman’s work post-Katrina, without a hint of scandal, although three of the four prior Insurance Commissioners were convicted and sent to jail.
Louisiana seems to have backed away from the abyss, quite a feat, considering that Congressman Billy Tauzin used to joke that, at any point in time, half the state was under water and half under indictment. The jury remains out, however, as U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s office regularly announces new indictments of current or former political figures and their cronies.
The business community has not distinguished itself in this regard, as enormous profits were routinely earned by those who played fast and loose with the rules. Yet as long as investors received regular returns, all was well. Even the astronomical returns claimed by Bernard Madoff raised few eyebrows as long as enough new investors were found to support the returns paid to their predecessors. Can this be attributed to anything but a subordination of integrity to self-interest?
Apparently, integrity is and must be its own reward. As Arthur Freed succinctly put it, “[d]on’t try to be different. Just be good. To be good is different enough.” How good is “good”? Maybe all we have to do is try to be as good as our pets already think that we are. That would be
different, particularly if we demanded the same from those whom we elect and those with whom we do business.