Ethics In Politics: Special Interests

ETHICS IN POLITICS

“If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” John Adams said this in 1776. He and other virtuous men designed and implemented our founding documents and their result, our federal government.

It’s not overstating the case to say that you need read no further. John Adams said it all with the word virtue. End of subject. Finis. Nothing more to say. But, as you see, more has been said here. It’s worth reading…

The point is that you already know all about what follows. You understand ethics at your core—you were born with the knowledge. What’s happened is that over the years, the truth has been subjugated by life experiences and impingement by others on your basic good nature. We become inured by constant assaults on our inherent human attributes. We are so used to ‘the way things are’ that we fail to realize (as in make real) the way things ought to be. Isn’t it a fact that you intuitively know when something is wrong? We, each of us, have an inhibiting sense of wrong, an inner sagacity compelling us to right action. Think about it and you will realize that you have it. Every whole person has it. It’s called conscience.

This being said, let’s deal with the subject at hand.

Our federal government was shaped by the two major forms of government historically extant in the West, those being a strong central government (as in France) and the more local, less bureaucratic, sort as typified by England. The federal model, first found in Switzerland, is the basis of our own (and later those of Canada, Germany and Australia as well). Our federal government is defined in our constitution which distributes power between federal and state governments and prevents disputes between federal and state authorities. It also vests power in a Supreme Court to interpret our Constitution and enforce the law of the land, while remaining independent of the legislative and executive branches. Our written federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. One can only begin by believing that it means what it says. It can of course be modified. The mechanism to do so is found in its ability to be amended.

It is politic (sorry) to begin any discussion with a definition of just what it is we’re talking about. The following definitions come from various accepted sources—you can find your own should you care to do so. These definitions are meant only to provide the parameters for following discussions of ethics.

The word POLITICS is from the Greek (politikós) meaning citizen or civilian, and has come to mean a process by which groups of people/citizens make collective decisions. Politics consists of social relations involving authority or power, and has come to be applied to behavior within civil governments; it refers to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply public policy. This of course begs definition of the word civil, which, among other things, is an adjective referring to adherence to the norms of polite social intercourse, not deficient in common courtesy. It is important to keep this in mind because it has strong ethical implications.

POLITICS itself is defined as the art of political government; the practice/profession of conducting political affairs; political methods and/or maneuvers; political principles and opinions; and use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control. Keep this in mind as well, because it too has (very) strong ethical implications.

For some reason, Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary includes the definition of playing politics along with definitions of politics itself in, bringing politics into ethical focus, to wit: to engage in political intrigue, to take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc., to exploit a political system or political relationship; to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative or devious way. It should be obvious at this point that ethical considerations are no longer merely implied in, but are an integral part of, any serious discussion of politics.

Consider the words intrigue, resort to, partisan, take advantage of, exploit, manipulative and devious. These words all beg methods that, in the hands of those seeking power, may very well jog the truth from its moorings. Is this necessarily so? Of course not, but the proclivity is there nonetheless. Does there remain any doubt that there are unethical politicians among us? We all know better, none more than politicians themselves. It is just too tempting to bend the rules in order to reach the desired ends, and politics begets desired ends.

How then do we reach the point of ethical politics? It would seem that to do so, the rules need be rewritten. First, though, it is necessary to admit that politics and politicians are subject to unethical practices, and for individuals to require that unethics is unacceptable. The only real rule to be enforced is that the truth be neither hidden nor compromised, but instead made the rule. This of course is only good sense and should not have to be an issue. Unfortunately, to ignore it as an issue is folly.

Should everyone require the truth, the problem would solve itself. This, then, should be a major goal, if not the only one. Is it a reasonable one? Of course it is. Can it be achieved? The answer to this is less certain, but the more that people demand the truth, the closer we can come. At this point the answer is no. It would seem that any step in the right direction would be important.

Electing honest politicians would begin to solve the problem. This is a function of the electorate, meaning the individual, meaning you. Ultimately you are responsible for electing honest politicians. But we all know that remaining ethical while in office is bound to be difficult, meaning that the individual (you) must continue to be vigilant. To be ethical requires constant care. It is all too easy to slip the moorings, if only occasionally. While being ethical may be the (natural) norm, there are all too many distractions, not to mention reasons for bending the truth to achieve one’s ends. It is not overly inclusive to say that everybody does it. Does this mean that the end (honesty) is impossible? Not at all. The first thing to do is that if you must(?) be unethical, be honest about it!

Whoa! Without getting into an unnecessarily involved discussion here, the (ethical) thing to do is to admit it, first to oneself, then to others. It is terribly important to admit it first to oneself. Doing so will go a long way toward admitting it to others. In fact, it will virtually force you to do just that.

The careful reader will discern that we no longer are talking about politics. We are talking about the individual—you. This is what is meant by our claim that ethics is ethics. It doesn’t matter the profession we’re dealing with. It all falls on you, the individual. Don’t accept the way it is. Move to make it the way it should be.

We maintain that ethics is simple. All you have to do is to hew to the truth and be honest. This approach is clarified in All The Answers: What To Do, How To Do It, and Why. But you need not read the book. You simply have to accept the premises that people are basically ethical, and that ethics is simple. With the truth you can safely resolve any ethical situation in any field you choose to select.

RESOLVING ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN POLITICS

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained clearly in Federalist Paper 45: 'The powers delegated by the…Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which…remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States…extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.'

This ought to clarify the basis of our Constitution; after all, Madison wrote it. Nevertheless, many politicians seem to either have not read the Constitution or if they have, forgotten it. If they have not read it and pledged to uphold it, they are perforce unethical. If they did not forget it and have proceeded along lines counter to it, they are unethical as well. First and foremost, politicians (and politics) are beholden to the Constitution.

Similarly, politicians are obliged to read any legislation that they vote upon. To do otherwise is unethical (to pass legislation ‘to see what’s in it’ is unethical). Why? Simply because it is not honest.

It should be obvious that “playing politics” (see the foregoing definitions) can open the door to being unethical. It takes an honest person to avoid the pitfalls. While such as these exist, so do dishonest ones. While it is possible to honestly engage in intrigue, even to take advantage of a political situation/issue or exploit the political system or a political relationship, the danger of dealing with people in an opportunistic, manipulative or devious way is ever present. Some do—others do not.

It is incumbent on all citizens to insist on ethics in politics, to see that those whom they elect operate honestly. Unfortunately often this is not the case, and unethics is found at virtually all levels of politics. This will continue to be the case until honesty prevails. Ethics is an individual attribute. It starts with the individual. It is up to you.

SPECIAL INTERESTS

Special interests are a staple of politics. It is well known that professional paid lobbyists pressure politicians to pass legislation favoring their particular product(s) and industries. This is an accepted way of doing business in Washington and the various state capitals. There is of course ample opportunity to buy favors in one way or another; unethical practices may (and do) find their way into the system.

This should not be surprising because politics itself is a particular special interest. Politicians craft and pass laws that benefit themselves specifically and directly; examples are favorable compensation, insurance and retirement plans and other personal benefits unavailable to the ordinary citizen. More often than not these perquisites are crafted within the political system without the knowledge of persons outside it.

There exists ample room for dishonesty in this system, and therefore politics generally. Full disclosure before the fact should be, but generally is not, the norm. In both theory and reality, our representatives are no different from their constituencies and should not be treated in any way better than their constituents—they do in fact represent us as one of us, not as a better.

The process is generally unethical, yet it is de rigeur in politics. These perks are sought after and promulgated by the political class, which has become a special interest of its own. Beginning with a basically unethical practice, corruption is, in fact, built into the political system. A case can be made that, because of this, all politicians are unethical.

This is of course unduly harsh because all current politicians in the system were not responsible for existing perks. However, they are beneficiaries. The point is that, with unethical practices built into the system, it is oh-so-easy to let them drift into other areas. Can this practice be ended? Of course it can, simply by putting the system ‘on the table’ and putting it to popular vote. Only then can we expect to begin to make politics ethical. We can start by electing ethical politicians and directing them to repair the system. Lik I said 'way back there, It is up to you.

More on Warming...

A new study reported in Science reports that water vapor has decreased in the atmosphere over the past decade, and that GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES HAVE STAYED ROUGHLY FLAT OVER THE SAME PERIOD (TEN YEARS). This hardly supports claims of ‘global warming’.

While it’s true that global temps have been SLOWLY increasing over the past century, this can be explained by the fact that we are in an interglacial period, a perfectly natural phenomenon. ‘Global warming’ is a perfectly natural phenomenon. And so will be 'global cooling,' if we live to see it...

Water vapor is the most abundant ‘greenhouse gas,’ and could be lowered by decreasing evaporation over the oceans. That is about as practical as everyone stopping breathing out to decrease CO² in order to ‘control’ climate change. Climate changes constantly, all by itself, AND WE CANNOT CONTROL IT. We can’t understand all of the factors affecting the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY MODEL ALL THE VARIABLES CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE WE NEITHER UNDERSTAND ALL OF WHAT WE SEE NOR DO WE KNOW ALL THE VARIABLES IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just simply think about the past two very severe winters. We don’t understand THAT, and it is happening right in front of our faces.

We are going to do the following anyway because we can’t even control the likes of China and India, so let’s see whether or not their massive and growing ‘carbon footprint’ has any effect on global temps before we take the extremely (and unnecessary) steps to reduce our own. They are not about to stunt their economic growths by limiting emissions, nor can we affect their actions of doing so.

“An expert panel including three Nobel Laureate economists concluded that devoting just 0.2% of global GDP—roughly $100 Billion a year—to CO2-free R&D could produce the kind of breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future…a less-expensive fix than trying to reduce carbon emissions…(and would reduce any man-made warming trend [by no means proven to even exist] far more quickly [if at all]).” Bjorn Lomberg . Or better still-

Go nuclear! Wind and solar can’t cut it for any number of reasons, including especially economic. Overbearing regulation (mostly because of environmental activists going back to the ‘60s) can be softened considerably, and the lead time necessary for nuclear construction shortened considerably, making nuclear less expensive than it calculates based on these old data (try HALF).

note: Just heard on the radio today that trees in the Northeast are growing 2 to 4 times faster than they used to. Blame it on more CO2 (too much?), longer growing season.


...and another thing:

According to its most recent annual report, in fiscal 2008, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (the nation's largest abortion provider) had annual revenue of more than $1 billion. Of this, almost $350 million of American taxpayer dollars supported the work of Planned Parenthood for the year October 2007 - September 2008.

According to tax records from the same time period, this 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization had a net income $85 million greater than its expenses. (Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council)

Does anyone see anything wrong with these numbers?

I'd appreciate any comments on the foregoing!

The Truth about climate change

GLOBAL WARMING, or is it CLIMATE CHANGE?

…a subject about which I can claim considerable knowledge.

I have been a geological scientist for more than half a century. Geology is the science of the earth (and by definition, the environment). Typically, we geologists begin our investigations by observing and documenting current conditions, then working backward to determine how they got that way. This is accomplished using, among other tools, the method of multiple working hypotheses devised by T.C. Chamberlin, an American geologist, that has found its way into many other investigatory sciences. Essentially, it involves looking at current conditions and investigating simultaneously, without prejudice, every conceivable way which might have led to the current situation. This method will necessarily include chasing down dead ends and correcting wrong turns, but it has the advantage of identifying false and misleading information and enhancing the credibility of the conclusion. It is, if anything, a thorough and exhaustive approach.

My own geology education began in 1950 and has been amplified in many ways since that time. Being the definitive earth science, geology includes hydrology, meteorology, climatology, oceanography, even cosmology, any science that adds to knowledge about the earth and conditions thereon. In other words, it’s not just ‘rocks,’ although that may well be where we begin some investigations. It goes back to the Big Bang, and proceeds from there.

Geologists necessarily investigate past earth environments using various techniques. These include geophysics, glacial cycles and ice cores, tree rings, fossils, glaciology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, structure, and anything else that might provide clues to historical climate change, among other things. In other words, we are uniquely qualified to determine what happened when, during the earth’s long history. It’s what we do.

When I began my education, plate tectonics and ‘continental drift’ were just a glimmer in the minds of a few. Now, plate tectonics is a proven phenomenon that can be observed in real-time. When I began my geology education, geophysics was a ‘science abornin’. Now, precise geophysical methods are used regularly and with confidence to investigate and measure accurately otherwise-unobservable earth conditions. I have been involved directly in its development and use. When I began my geology education, mid-oceanic ridges and other massive, literally earth-shaking, features were unknown. In other words, I go ‘way back.

I have grown up with contemporary earth science. I have kept current with post-graduate courses in rock mechanics, hydrology, engineering geology, soils engineering, airphoto interpretation, seismology, geophysical methods, even statistical methods and computer modeling, few of which were available in my undergraduate years. I have done this because I had to, to keep up with the ever-developing earth sciences. I have written professional papers and articles about many of these subjects, and I continue to study my chosen science even as I grow unable to follow it all.

I bore you with these details only to point out that I know something about the subject. I am, in fact, an expert.

Global warming is a fact. Global cooling is a fact. The earth’s conditions continue to change because of constant cosmological and geological functioning. The earth’s poles shift, and it precesses (wobbles on its axis). The sun is hotter today than it was in the distant past. Sunspots affect conditions on earth; recent studies show that the sun’s activity affects the formation of certain clouds, which themselves affect climatic conditions. Plate tectonics change the distribution of continental and oceanic masses, and sub-sea rifting and volcanoes affect currents and temperatures world-wide. The earth is not a static entity, but is dynamic, constantly changing. Conditions on earth and in its atmosphere change as well—they must.

One volcano can cause massive differences in global temperature and climate. Earth has experienced and will continue to experience innumerable volcanoes, all of which have contributed or will contribute to change. Man’s activities may well contribute in some way to change, but they are nothing when compared with natural processes. ‘Mother Nature’ adapts to change, maintaining a delicate balance that we cannot understand at our present level of knowledge.

We breathe out, and vegetation takes in, carbon dioxide. As a necessary part of the natural process, it can hardly be considered a pollutant. We can’t survive without it.

Climate change is natural and normally proceeds relatively slowly. As it does, nature adapts in important ways over which we have no control. Computer modeling, which is quite useful in some of the disciplines mentioned earlier, is insufficiently developed to predict local weather over the short term, let alone global climate over the long term. It requires accurate and well-understood data currently unavailable. While it will be a useful tool in the future, we are not there yet.

Recent revelations have exposed the drive toward control of greenhouse gases to slow ‘global warming’ as a fraud. Bad science has manipulated data and distorted facts, and important discoveries that contradict the ‘politically-correct’ view have been buried and ignored by a cohort of biased ‘scientists’ who have not employed the method of multiple working hypotheses and have prostituted their expertise in favor of a political agenda. It was only a matter of time until this fraud was exposed because it is not genuine science. It goes against what we have learned and know about earth science.

Political correctness is a disease that has proven to have wide effects. When science is compromised, we cannot trust it to be, as it must be, objective. This is another destructive example of unethical and immoral behavior that has no place in our society and culture. Politics has no place in science, and science must not be politicized. Must law be turned into a global lying contest before we correct the problem? I hope not.

Some Current Thoughts

My mantra goes something like this: I don’t wish, worry or wait. It saves me a lot of time and disappointment, keeping me focused on the here and now (which is what really matters) rather than the then and when.

But I must confess, I do wonder.

I wonder how a majority of American voters could elect a virtual unknown with no visible performance record, and then sit by and watch his government take liberties with our time-honored American heritage. Is it merely because he is black? Are we in fear of being labeled ‘racist?’ I can’t believe that, even though the black vote was a deciding factor in his election. I believe that we have elected a self-absorbed man with the potential for greatness who seeks to be great in the wrong way. He is in position to be one of our better presidents. He has time to recover. I wonder if he will.

Our thirtieth President wrote: “It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.” This is an amazingly insightful statement. Read it again—including the part about the spirit of our institutions.

But we hear empty promises of hope, change, and bipartisanship dictated dispassionately (with visual aids) to an increasingly skeptical citizenry. Our president continues to campaign while failing to act in the best interests of our nation. A cohort of unilaterally-selected ‘czars,’ neither vetted nor approved, and their new bureaucracies erode our liberties. A divided one-party Congress takes its legislative pleasure, vast sums of unaccounted-for money are misguided to irresponsible (even unknown) individuals and political entities, yet we strain to see results while an increasing number of us are becoming unemployed. Our national debt skyrockets. The administration has taken control of a large part of our auto industry and now seeks to commandeer another sixth of the economy by forcing through a ‘health’ bill that few have seen, even fewer can understand, and fewer yet seem to want. I can’t believe that this is the ‘hope’ and ‘change’ that’ we bargained for. Does anyone really approve?

I, and a large percentage of Americans, no longer have meaningful representation in Congress. The ‘balance of powers’ no longer exists—lawyers now control all three branches of government. ‘Political correctness’ has reached new heights—we couch unpleasant subjects in meaningless ‘inoffensive’ language that compromises reality and weakens resolve. We are afraid of the ‘racist’ and other labels and calling liars to task. We vilify our (my) predominant religious foundation while turning a blind eye to the actions of a minority only to suffer by and cower in fear of them.

Where is the ‘hope’ of a new and better America? Where is the promised bipartisanship? Where is the decisiveness of positive action? What has happened to the hard-earned respect we once had among nations?

Well, that is squandered by obsequiousness to foreign heads of government and delays in making important diplomatic and military decisions.

America, like it or not, remains the single most powerful nation on earth and, since we are at base a socially-liberal and responsible conservative republic, we historically have accepted our responsibilities by aiding needy nations, intervened to fight totalitarianism and encourage democracy (not always wanted and perhaps not always necessary) and held the western world together during massive world conflict. It is natural for other nations to be envious, and unnecessary for us to be remorseful for doing things ‘our way,’ even if less than perfect. Doing things ‘their way’ is not necessary. Anti-Americanism is a fact of life that we must deal with positively, not apologetically. Going back to the 7th century is neither tolerable nor recommended.

Please understand that I am not against our President. I simply want him to keep his promises and responsibly manage the power of his position as leader of the free world. His uncertainty belies his inexperience, but he has the bipartisan resources to recover from that position if he only will work from the foundation of our Republic. He is in a position to be one of our better presidents if he would use the resources at his disposal from both sides of the aisle. Getting off on the wrong foot is understandable, but recovery is possible with a healthy amount of humility and resourcefulness. When the job is bigger than the man, the man must grow into the job (Harry Truman). He has the time to do this if he goes beyond himself, but only he can do it. I ‘hope’ he will ‘change.’ I wonder if he will…

MORAL CLARITY

There clearly is an aversion to time-honored moral wisdom by many who have become seduced by postmodernism, multi-culturalism and victimology. These people have become detached and pessimistic; they are averse to taking a position on anything that might be considered “moral,” afraid to make a “moral” judgment on any action of any group for any reason. After all, even terrorists may have “good” reasons for what they do. Who are we to condemn them?

Susan Neiman, in her book Moral Clarity, writes (in addition to the foregoing): “The fact that ideals can be perverted doesn’t mean that we can do without them…” and “Tolerance…can never serve as a rallying cry.” There are times when righteous people have to stand up for ethics in the name of humanity.

Our society is collapsing under the weight of a fear of being judgmental. Merry “Christmas—the holiday that dare not speak its name” (Daniel Henninger in TWSJ) is thrown under the bus because it may offend someone, no matter that it has a long and memorable history of bringing harmless joy to a good portion of humanity (of many religious persuasions) for many years. Marriage must be extended to cover everyone, no matter it origins and time-honored definition. Anything that might be based in spirituality is suspect because we dare not mention it in the same breath as politics.

A return to real ethics will go a long way towards turning around this trend and restoring reason to our society, as well as the rest of the world. Take a stand! Nobody respects a society that doesn’t stand up for its principles. Our principles are clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, hammered out by a group of brilliant men into a time-honored credo that has been the envy of the world for more than two hundred years. That others have become jealous of it is no reason to abandon it. It is, in fact, an excellent reason for defending it.

GET REAL! Defend your liberty!