A Growing Trend in Political Ethics

Looking back in American history, when the Founders of America devised a structure for the federal government, which since has been emulated by most states; they mandated frequent elections as a matter of accountability. Since, it was left to later generations of politicians to turn the idea on its head. Whereas the Founders viewed frequent elections as opportunities for citizens to approve or disapprove of their elected officials' actions, the incumbent politicians have come to view the approach of an election as an opportunity to evade that review by not doing anything when holding a position, while their challengers for the position have spent years landscaping their personal life. This trend helps to undermine accountability in government.

A politician's image can be made or broken on the level of trust held by their constituents. It’s true, that we Americans like our politicians to be strong, trustworthy and honorable, and with the exact right personal history, a new candidate’s name can either inspire us or fill us with doubt and malaise. Looking over a new candidate’s personal life is essential in effort to avoid any potential political ethics violations in the future. Political ethics (sometimes called political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgments about political action. However, if one were to be unethical in their personal life, it would have far less catastrophic effects on the general public than would the unethical actions of an elected official. The central question is the extent to which the ethical principles that govern political office differ from those that govern moral life more generally (Hampshire 1978; Thompson 1987).

Further, like any kind of morality, political ethics assumes that the persons whom it judges can be responsible for the actions for which they are judged. However, the structure of public office threatens this assumption because many different individuals in an organization contribute in many ways to the decisions and policies (collectively); thus, it is difficult even in principle to identify who is responsible for the results. It is for this reason we should give serious consideration toward the personal history of any new political candidate as it pertains to ethics.

To better illustrate how new political challengers spend years landscaping their personal life, only to have serious ethical issues, we can look no further than our own Maryland House of Delegates race. Port Tobacco resident John Coller (registered as a Democrat) wasted little time in entering the legislative race after Kelly, Murphy ‘big switch’.

In an interview with Southern Maryland News, Coller stated, “I heard about the opening and the folks encouraging me to run. They’re thinking the big switch here might be creating some confusion among voters,” he said. “It’s not really allowing them to hold their elected officials accountable in the primary.” While taking political advantage of constituent confusion is nothing new in politics, neither is switching party because it gives one a better chance of being elected, especially when considering Mr. Coller has been a staunch Republican for the majority of his life, until recent.

Abandoning a political party is not a new tool in the handy-man bag of politicians, but it does bring to light that public (ethical) trust should be an issue for those who do switch parties during an election.  In likeness, abandoning marital commitments when having multiple sexual affairs on a former spouse, or having made sexual advances toward a former roommate, as candidate John Coller did between 1998 and 2001, while living in the same house as his wife and two children should be just as alarming for constituents, polically, as it would be for anyone in his personal life pertaining to ethics, which is exactly the kind of history Marylander’s should know when considering Coller to the House of Delegates. When discussing supporters during the interview, Mr. Coller suggested the people in legislative district 28 would, “see me as someone who can make rational decisions and come to logical conclusions”. I doubt they would view him that way when given his history.

These types of ethical concerns are becoming more frequent in recent years. When people fear coming forward with personal ethical concerns early in a political candidates endeavors, it leaves opportunity for future political sexual scandal i.e. Anthony Wiener, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, William  Jefferson “Bill” Clinton, etc. We the People should not expect accountability from an elected official or legislator if we ourselves are setting the standard of not holding them accountable prior to holding any public office or position. In today’s day and age, most every high risk, public safety or government job that requires a security clearance has extensive background checks; although background checks are not a full proof guarantee for providing good  ethics in a workplace, we, as a nation, might consider making it a requirement for elected officials.  After all, it is those individual’s ethics which have a direct impact on the public’s welfare of our communities, collectively.

Sources:
Port Tobacco Real Estate Agent enters House of Delegates Race
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140207/NEWS/140209468/1055/port-tobacco-real-estate-agent-enters-h...