Ethics and Politics In a Centrist Third Party
Robert A. Levine 1-3-12
“If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”
The Federalist Papers, Number 15, Alexander Hamilton
In a recent dialogue in the New York Times on the need for a centrist third party, I listed ethical conduct as one of the necessary hallmarks of this new party. Many respondents asserted that it is
not realistic to expect politicians to have ethics guide their actions, since being honest and upright will not help them win elections and would in fact hinder them. They also noted that even if candidates and officeholders in this new party began their careers untainted, politics would soon force them to dirty their hands.
I disagree. The electorate has become accustomed to double-dealing and deceit from politicians and now accepts this as the norm. But if a centrist third party made integrity one of its defining characteristics and showed citizens how this could be accomplished, the party would be applauded and rewarded with votes. Americans are appalled by the corruption and partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats and many of them would be happy to support a new party that emphasized ethics. Integrity, transparency and pragmatism are the ways this new entity could differentiate itself from the current parties.
Legislating ethical reform does not work when legislators are constantly seeking ways to subvert the laws they have enacted and when they value the veneer of respectability more than ethical conduct. From its inception, this new party would have to have a strict code of conduct that its members agreed to observe and that the leadership enforced, unlike the Republicans and Democrats who generally ignore ethical lapses. Self-policing and transparency from the party
would ensure integrity, particularly if there were onerous penalties for deviant behavior. Just as a culture of corruption in an organization can spawn more corruption, a culture of integrity is likely to foster ethical behavior.
To demonstrate its commitment to ethics, this fledgling party could utilize a written Oath of Conduct that mandated a different system of financing political campaigns. Candidates would agree not to take payments from any groups or individuals personally, but would direct all donations toward designated party administrative entities. (The funds could then be distributed anonymously according to the donor’s wishes.) Party members would also eschew political action committees and would never use political funds for personal gain. They would promise as well not to accept meals, trips, vacations, fact-finding junkets, or tickets to any events from individuals or organizations that had an interest in current or future legislation or executive actions. Any party member elected to office, appointed to an executive position, or serving on the staff of an elected or appointed official would also agree not to work as a lobbyist for five years after he or she left office. Officials from this party would be free to meet with lobbyists or representatives of special interests as they would with any constituent, but the discussions would be open and they would not accept any favors or funds. (This would not be unilateral disarmament as funds would be solicited from those who believed in this new party’s principles, with small donations also collected over the Internet.)
To give the Oath teeth, candidates and officeholders would sign the document and confirm that they understood its intent, agreeing to forfeit a monetary sum if their pledges were not honored. The amount of the penalty would be set by a party ethics board along with the details of the contract, but would be severe enough to dissuade members from abrogating the agreement. If members did not comply with their contracts and did not pay the penalties, they could be sued by the party. To prevent deceit, members would be required to list their assets with the party if they held an office or government post. Every two years, this would be updated as a further guarantee of financial rectitude. The Oath of Conduct and the willingness of party members to list their assets would prove to the public that this new party was serious about limiting corruption and conflicts of interest. The use of the Oath might seem draconian to some observers, but only robust measures will remove the stain of ethical laxness that most citizens associate with politicians.
Though there might be cynicism regarding this attempt at ethics reform based on past failures, a centrist third party could change the political dynamic in America with self-policing and transparency.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Robert A. Levine 1-3-12
“If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”
The Federalist Papers, Number 15, Alexander Hamilton
In a recent dialogue in the New York Times on the need for a centrist third party, I listed ethical conduct as one of the necessary hallmarks of this new party. Many respondents asserted that it is
I disagree. The electorate has become accustomed to double-dealing and deceit from politicians and now accepts this as the norm. But if a centrist third party made integrity one of its defining characteristics and showed citizens how this could be accomplished, the party would be applauded and rewarded with votes. Americans are appalled by the corruption and partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats and many of them would be happy to support a new party that emphasized ethics. Integrity, transparency and pragmatism are the ways this new entity could differentiate itself from the current parties.
Legislating ethical reform does not work when legislators are constantly seeking ways to subvert the laws they have enacted and when they value the veneer of respectability more than ethical conduct. From its inception, this new party would have to have a strict code of conduct that its members agreed to observe and that the leadership enforced, unlike the Republicans and Democrats who generally ignore ethical lapses. Self-policing and transparency from the party
To demonstrate its commitment to ethics, this fledgling party could utilize a written Oath of Conduct that mandated a different system of financing political campaigns. Candidates would agree not to take payments from any groups or individuals personally, but would direct all donations toward designated party administrative entities. (The funds could then be distributed anonymously according to the donor’s wishes.) Party members would also eschew political action committees and would never use political funds for personal gain. They would promise as well not to accept meals, trips, vacations, fact-finding junkets, or tickets to any events from individuals or organizations that had an interest in current or future legislation or executive actions. Any party member elected to office, appointed to an executive position, or serving on the staff of an elected or appointed official would also agree not to work as a lobbyist for five years after he or she left office. Officials from this party would be free to meet with lobbyists or representatives of special interests as they would with any constituent, but the discussions would be open and they would not accept any favors or funds. (This would not be unilateral disarmament as funds would be solicited from those who believed in this new party’s principles, with small donations also collected over the Internet.)
To give the Oath teeth, candidates and officeholders would sign the document and confirm that they understood its intent, agreeing to forfeit a monetary sum if their pledges were not honored. The amount of the penalty would be set by a party ethics board along with the details of the contract, but would be severe enough to dissuade members from abrogating the agreement. If members did not comply with their contracts and did not pay the penalties, they could be sued by the party. To prevent deceit, members would be required to list their assets with the party if they held an office or government post. Every two years, this would be updated as a further guarantee of financial rectitude. The Oath of Conduct and the willingness of party members to list their assets would prove to the public that this new party was serious about limiting corruption and conflicts of interest. The use of the Oath might seem draconian to some observers, but only robust measures will remove the stain of ethical laxness that most citizens associate with politicians.
Though there might be cynicism regarding this attempt at ethics reform based on past failures, a centrist third party could change the political dynamic in America with self-policing and transparency.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment