Ethics Newsline®

Dear Nancy and Harry,

Congratulations on your new positions. Your role as speaker of the House, Nancy, was always in the cards, though you racked up a larger majority than predicted. Your pathway to Senate majority leader, Harry, was tougher. But you’ve both got a mandate for change, and the people gave it to you vigorously.

Why? Largely over ethical issues. Exit polls by AP, CNN, and four other networks, asking voters which issues were “extremely important to their vote,” found that corruption and ethics ranked higher (42 percent) than any other issue, including terrorism (40 percent), the economy (39 percent), and Iraq (37 percent). Echoing through the polling stations was the ominous sound of kingpins falling — the scandals that already had consumed such Republicans as Tom Delay in Texas, Randy Cunningham in California, Bob Ney in Ohio, and Mark Foley in Florida. By Tuesday, voters had had enough. They voted their values.

So you were spot-on, Nancy, in telling the nation after the election that the “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open, and the most ethical Congress in history.” Republicans, of course, said similar things when they took the White House in 2000 on the updraft of the Clinton-Lewinski affair. Voters in 2004, returning Bush to power, also made moral values a significant point of discussion. The question for you both is, How will you be different? How will you keep your party from tumbling into similar dishonor?

You’ll do it, I hope, by giving genuine, sustained, and probing attention to ethics — and by facing down four dangerous counterarguments:

1. Relativism. The first counterargument is that moral values are relativistic, vague, and of little interest to the general public. That last contention was exploded by the exit polls. But the question remains, Why this great public interest? Because values are so fuzzy and subjective that they can’t be defined? No. It’s because a handful of values — honesty, responsibility, respect, fairness, and compassion — constitute the shared standard by which good citizens seek to live. The “most ethical Congress in history,” then, is no mere abstraction. It has concrete meaning for voters. It would be a Congress rich with candor and openness, accountability and loyalty, dignity and regard for others’ opinions, equity and justice, and caring and affection. Any departure from those values would quickly raise comparisons to the Republican scandals of 2006.

2. Compliance. The second counterargument says that ethics is only about right versus wrong. Of course Congress needs to avoid wrongdoing. Compliance with laws and rules is crucial. But your toughest challenges won’t pit good guys against bad guys. They’ll pit your deepest values against each other — honesty against loyalty, justice against mercy, the needs of the individual against those of the community, short-term gains against long-term benefits. Whatever would reduce ethics to mere compliance would have you believe that all discourse is inherently adversarial — that if I’m right, what could you possibly be but wrong? That leads to more of the same old self-righteous, dismissive, right-versus-wrong moralizing, just when the public longs for dignified, considerate, right-versus-right debate about issues where each side has strong moral arguments.

3. Cowardice. In his 1956 book Profiles in Courage, then-senator John F. Kennedy noted that “the path of the conscientious insurgent must frequently be a lonely one.” He was describing the “terrible pressures” that “discourage acts of political courage.” Those pressures lead public figures to abandon their values, reason lamely about dilemmas, and run away from positions that, while ethical, are too painful to support. That’s when moral courage is needed. But courage requires trust: Who, after all, will take a stand when there’s no confidence that things could turn out okay? Congressional leadership needs to engender an ethic of trust — in the system, in the wisdom of the citizenry, in the honorableness of opposing views. That way, when individual members need resounding and vertebrate boldness, their peers will be there to help them endure the discomfort that courage entails.

4. Ego. The most damaging counter-ethical argument, however, is that the individual himself or herself is the ultimate moral authority — that things are right because I say so, and that I’m so exceptional I can set my own standard. While there’s much to be said for self-confidence, there’s a higher confidence demanded in Congress. Its task is to create an organizational culture of integrity larger than the sum of its members. In Congress, as in any institution, that culture lives through its campfire stories, its legends and legacies, its narratives and habits of communicating. Every debate and every vote sustains that culture — and is shaped by it. The public longs for a collective culture of integrity so strong that, whenever members are tempted to lean away, there’s a moral center of gravity that pulls them back upright.

The “most ethical Congress in history,” then, will recognize universal ethical values. It will grow skillful at right-versus-right reasoning. It will find new reservoirs of moral courage. And it will leave legacies of integrity that make ethics easier for the next Congress.

A hard job? Yes. But not impossible. Get a running start, compromise on positions but never on principles, and keep yourselves ethically fit. The public will do the rest.

All the best,
Rush Kidder

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“This isn’t just about our son. It’s about holding the military accountable. Finding out what happened to Pat is ultimately going to be important in finding out what happened to other soldiers.”

WASHINGTON
Ethics was more important than any other issue, including the war in Iraq, in last week’s U.S. midterm elections, according to polling data.

CNN reports that national exit polls showed that when asked which issue was “extremely important” to their vote, more voters specified corruption and ethics in government than any other concern.

Last week’s vote, which overturned Republican control of the House and the Senate, appeared to reflect voter dissatisfaction on a number of key moral concerns, according to an analysis from Bloomberg reporter Jonathan D. Salant.

“Democrats ousted three House Republican incumbents with ties to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” Salant wrote. “They won all three seats vacated by Republicans who resigned because of scandals involving Abramoff and former Representative Mark Foley of Florida. They also defeated two Pennsylvania Republicans with ethical problems.”

The Canadian Press notes that polls showed the religious right, an important sector of the Republic base, also reflecting disenchantment with government ethics, including the handling of the revelation that former Republican congressman Mark Foley sent sexually charged emails to teenage pages.

In the aftermath of the election, presumptive House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who trumpeted the “culture of corruption” theme during the run-up to the election, promised to reintroduce lobbying and ethics reform within the new Congress’s first 100 hours, according to a report from the Medill News Service.

MOSCOW
Government officials in Russia are pocketing bribes that are roughly equal to the nation’s entire revenues, according to a prosecutor there.

First deputy prosecutor general Alexander Buksman said corrupt officials are stealing about $240 billion per year, a figure comparable to the nation’s officially stated gross national revenues, according to the Moscow Times.

The Associated Press reports that Buksman’s comments mark the first time a senior Russian official has ascribed a monetary figure to corruption, a problem that has mushroomed as the nation moves toward a free-market economy.

The explosion in bribery comes despite a public crackdown on corruption by president Vladimir Putin, notes the International Herald Tribune.

The anti-corruption agency Transparency International, which has consistently rated Russia among the most corrupt nations in the world, said the $240 billion figure is believable.

TI Russia director Elena Panfilova told the BBC: “This figure is not only for bribery; it is kickbacks to state officials for procurements, the purchase of permission for business…. If we look at corruption in this way, then the $240 billion figure is possible.”

WASHINGTON
Corruption in the Iraqi government is soaking up billions of dollars, with some of the money being used to finance the insurgency, according to the U.S. official monitoring reconstruction in that nation.

Stuart Bowen told the BBC that Iraq is facing a “second insurgency” of corruption and mismanagement.

“This money that’s stolen doesn’t merely enrich criminals,” Bowen told the BBC. “[It] frequently goes out to fund criminal militias or insurgents. That means lost lives for U.S. troops.”

UPI reports that Bowen’s office so far has referred 25 corruption cases to the U.S. Justice Department, with four ending in convictions.

Bowen estimates that the price tag for corruption could be as high as $4 billion, according to UPI.

While the latest military appropriations bill eliminates Bowen’s position in the future, noting that it was intended to be a temporary function, extension of the auditor’s role is receiving a measure of bipartisan support in Congress — and also in some U.S. newspaper editorial pages, such as the Salt Lake City Tribune, which speculated that Bowen was “fired for doing his job too well” and upsetting entrenched business interests.

In total, more than $21 billion was allocated for reconstruction, according to the Kansas City Star.

WASHINGTON
Stem cell research — thought of as a possible breakthrough technology to treat incurable diseases, but limited because of moral considerations involving embryonic tissue — may gain new momentum because of political and scientific developments, according to press reports.

UPI notes that Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the likely future speaker of the House, already has identified funding for stem cell research as one of the top priorities for the new Congress.

Most current stem cell research involves embryonic cell tissue, the “master cells” of the body that scientists believe can be used to create other kinds of cells, including organs to replace body parts damaged by disease or illness. But harvesting stem cells has involved destruction of embryonic tissue, which some critics liken to abortion.

President Bush vetoed a bill funding stem cell research, citing religious objections.

While support for stem cell research has not divided precisely along party lines, it is believed by many observers that a Democrat-controlled Congress would offer a more favorable climate for funding stem cell research, according to an analysis from Wired magazine.

But legislation is not the only factor involved in the ethics of stem cell research: Scientists are looking for ways to streamline the harvesting or creation of so-called ethical stem cells, produced in such a manner that embryos are not destroyed and women are not asked to donate eggs, according to a report from WebMD.

One cutting-edge technique involves using adult cells and isolating two dozen chemicals in a process that scientists believe will impart stem-cell-like characteristics to the tissue.

But as the WebMD report notes, the procedure is still very inefficient, resulting in only one conversion in over a thousand attempts.

NAIROBI
A United Nations conference on the environment last week debated not only the technical details of global warming, but also called for explicit discussion of the ethical issues surrounding climate change.

“Climate change not only raises ethical questions, but the most profound ones — literally matters of life and death, who’s going to survive, the fate of nation states, obligations of one nation to another, of the rich and the poor,” and who is to be involved in the decisions, said Donald Brown, coordinator of the conference, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

According to the Monitor, a white paper produced for the conference examines ethical issues in eight categories, including targets for emission control, responsibility for damages, and the cost for national economies.

The white paper, titled “Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change,” claims that climate change policies that result in harm of life, liberty and security of people in other nations violate basic human rights, according to a report from the Nairobi Standard.

The journal New Scientist reports that a fundamental argument of the study is that “cost is not an ethically acceptable excuse for failing to take action to prevent harmful levels of pollution when that pollution threatens basic human rights.”

New Scientist also quotes conference organizer Brown as denying that incorporating ethics into a deal on global climate is wishful thinking. “Many international treaties are based on ethical foundations, whether on international pollution or human rights,” he said.

SYDNEY
The case of a baby born using a surrogate mother has sparked a fierce ethical and legal debate in Australia, where birth through surrogacy is governed by a patchwork of laws that differ from region to region.

As a result, a prominent Victoria politician, Labor senator Stephen Conroy, and his wife remain virtual fugitives in the state he represents because the couple violated local surrogacy laws, the Melbourne Herald-Sun reports. Those laws effectively mean that the couple has no rights to their baby, born last week using Senator Conroy’s sperm, a donated egg, and the womb of a surrogate mother.

The procedure is legal in Sydney, where the birth and the implantation procedure took place, reports Australia’s Daily Telegraph.

According to a report from the Australian Age, lawmakers from across the nation met last week to attempt to reconcile legislative differences governing surrogacy. If a consensus emerges, according to the Age, it would likely allow women across Australia to have universal access to in-vitro fertilization programs.

BEIJING
China’s Supreme Court last week gave itself authority to review all death penalty cases in a move to “prevent wrongful convictions.”

Christian Science Monitor Beijing correspondent Peter Ford reports that Supreme Court president Xiao Yang added that the move is “the most important reform of capital punishment in China in more than two decades.”

China is believed to execute more prisoners each year than the rest of the world’s nations put together, the Monitor reports, with some Chinese lawyers claiming that much of the evidence used in such convictions is extracted under torture.

Now, the Supreme Court is maintaining that the death penalty should be used for only an “extremely small number” of serious offenses, though no details were provided, according to a report from the Baltimore Sun.

In a related story, a report issued last week found that despite continued promises of judicial reform, courts in China are returning guilty verdicts against more than 99 percent of criminal defendants.

The Globe & Mail reports that the findings came in an article by the People’s Court Daily, a government newspaper, which simultaneously praised the Chinese court system for its “improved quality and efficiency” and its “legal protection of human rights.”

An analysis from the Scripps-Howard News Service maintains that the report may undermine Beijing’s recent efforts, including the high court’s stance on death penalty cases, to portray the government as a human rights reformer.

THE HAGUE
The International Criminal Court (ICC), a relatively new tribunal established to try leaders accused of large-scale human rights violations, opened its first case last week — a hearing into allegations that a Congolese warlord forced children to become killers.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is charged with kidnapping children and forcing them to become trained soldiers in Congo’s eastern region, according to a report from the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Agence France-Presse reports that prosecution lawyer Ekkehard Withopf said in his opening statement that “Lubanga made children train to kill, Lubanga made them kill and Lubanga let the children die … in hostilities.”

Lubanga’s case is precedent-setting because it marks the first time the issue of child soldiers has been brought before an international human rights tribunal, the International Herald Tribune reports.

Defense lawyers say Lubanga was actually a pacifist who attempted to quell the violence that plagued the region for years.

The hearings, scheduled to run through the end of December at the ICC’s Hague headquarters, will determine whether there is enough evidence to bring the case to a full trial, reports South Africa’s Independent.

Established in 1998 under the auspices of the United Nations, the ICC acts only when nations themselves are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute human rights violations, according to the U.N. News Service.

INDIANAPOLIS
An Enron whistle-blower recounted the moral dilemmas involved in exposing the situation during a recent series of college business-school appearances, noting that for her, the decision involved balancing the desire to tell the truth versus giving up as much as $30,000 per day in stock options.

Former Enron executive Lynn Brewer told an audience at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business last week that she was strongly tempted to ignore what was happening at Enron, according to a report from the campus newspaper the Indiana Daily Student.

“Some days I was making $20,000 or $30,000 per day. I didn’t even have to go to work to make money,” she said. “I began to realize that I’d been given twice as many stock options…. I realized that I’d become Enron at that moment because I chose to look the other way for the financial benefit of the stock options, something that [former Enron CEO] Jeff Skilling and [former Enron chairman] Ken Lay were doing every day,” she said, according to the paper.

Indianapolis television station WISH reports that Brewer, who worked for Enron for more than three years before going public, noted that she was rebuffed by her supervisor when she first reported irregularities.

She then confronted the additional dilemma of what would happen if she went public with the details, reports WISH, including exposing herself to legal retaliation and the possibility, later to come true, that exposing the fraud would eventually bring the company crashing down.

Brewer also repeated a theme stated during a speech at Penn State earlier in the month, noting that the biggest lesson coming from Enron was not about corruption; instead, she said, it was about the hundreds of people who observed corruption but looked the other way, according to the Penn State Collegian.

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

“The political center forcefully asserted itself in Tuesday’s midterms. The national exit poll showed that political independents, who divided their votes evenly between George Bush and John Kerry in 2004, swung decisively in favor of the Democrats. With roughly nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats casting ballots for representatives of their parties, just as they did two years ago, the Democrats’ 57%-39% advantage among independents proved crucial.

“As expected, the election turned out in large measure to be a referendum on President Bush and the war in Iraq — bad news for Republicans. About six-in-ten voters (59%) said they were either dissatisfied (30%) or angry (29%) with the president. By more than two-to-one, those dissatisfied with Bush supported the Democratic candidate in their district (69%-29%); among those angry with the president the margin was more than fifteen-to-one (92%-6%).

“Bush was much more of a drag on his party’s candidates than was former President Clinton in 1994, the year that Republicans won control of Congress. More than a third (36%) of the electorate said they voted to oppose Bush; that compares with 27% who voted to oppose Clinton in 1994, and 21% in 1998, the year Congress impeached the president.

“Voters rated a number of issues as extremely important. Roughly four-in-ten (41%) cited corruption and ethics as extremely important — a reflection of the many scandals that ensnared Republicans this year….

“The national exit polls also showed shifts among several key voter groups, and revealed that two issues on which Republicans campaigned — terrorism and illegal immigration — provided modest support for the GOP:

• “President Bush’s surprisingly strong showing among Hispanic voters was washed away in the strong Democratic tide. In 2004, Bush drew 44% of the Hispanic vote, according to the national exit poll. But in the midterm, Hispanic and Latino voters favored the Democrats by 69%-29%.
• “A gender gap was again evident in this year’s election, but it was smaller than in either 1994 or 1998. In contrast to those two elections, majorities of both women and men cast ballots for the same party on Tuesday — in this case the Democrats (56% women/51% men)….
• “Terrorism had long been a Republican strength, but the exit polls suggest that the war in Iraq has undermined the GOP’s advantage. By 59%-35%, voters said that the war in Iraq did not improve U.S. security….”

“The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress.”

–Charles F. Kettering (U.S. electrical engineer and inventor, 1876û1958)