A Brief Lecture on Ethics for Democrats

You have none.

Ethics for public officials require the following at a bare minimum:

The relationship between public officials and the public has been described by scholars as fiduciary in nature. (See e.g. Rave, 2013; Leib, Ponet & Serota, 2013; Ponet & Lieb, 2011; Natelson, 2004) So what is a fiduciary? Dictionary.com defines the term fiduciary as relating to, “a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.” There at least four factors that identify a relationship as a fiduciary one:

  1. The beneficiary has delegated authority to the fiduciary to act on its behalf;
  2. The fiduciary has discretionary powers over the beneficiary’s assets or interests;
  3. The fiduciary is in a position superior to that of the beneficiary due to specialized access, knowledge or ability; and
  4. The beneficiary trusts that the fiduciary will act in the beneficiary’s best interest.

[...]

The public delegates governing authority to public officials to exercise discretion over the public treasury and to create laws that will impact their lives. The public official, once elected, appointed, or hired, is in a superior position to that of the individual citizen due to specialized governmental knowledge and the ability to advise, deliberate, and participate in the representative process. And finally, the public trusts that the public official will act in the public’s best interest.

Ethics in government is an old concept. Plato wrote the following regarding what in the present we recognize as pay to play politics:

“Perform no service for gifts.” Whoso disobeys, if convicted by the court, shall be put to death once for all.

Yet, that is precisely the problem with the vast majority of Democrats in public office, and the Democratic Party collectively: they perform services for gifts, or as they euphemistically call it, fundraising. Democrats, individually, and through their various fundraising organizations, rely upon the receipt of billions of dollars from lobbyists and their wealthy corporate and individual clients. In exchange, Democratic officials provide special access to those who have given the money. And special favors as well. This is why the interests of the wealthy are given special attention, and the interests of the rest of us are ignored.

Hillary Clinton, during her term as US Secretary of State, provides a perfect case study of the unethical behavior in which so very many Democrats engage. One example should suffice: the emails between her underlings requiring State Department officials to prefer "FOB" and "WJC VIPs" (i.e., people and corporations who paid Bill Clinton huge sums for speeches, awarded him highly compensated "honorary" positions in their companies or otherwise donated to the Clinton Foundation) with respect to special access and the awarding of government contracts for the 2010 relief effort to Haiti:

[N]ewly released emails show a top aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave priority after the 2010 Haiti earthquake to aid contractors marked "FOB"—that’s "Friends of Bill Clinton"—or "WJC VIPs"—that’s "William Jefferson Clinton VIPs." One email from senior State Department official Caitlin Klevorick, who was coordinating incoming assistance offers being forwarded from the Clinton Foundation, read: "Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC. Most I can probably ID but not all."

The numerous examples of unethical conduct by the Former Secretary of State were legion and certainly well known to the Democratic Party establishment, including President Obama. Yet, she was the candidate with whom the DNC deliberately worked in close coordination to insure her nomination, despite its own charter which requires neutrality. The same candidate that most of the Democratic Super Delegates and local state parties supported before the primaries began because she bought them off or called in favors.

But Hillary Clinton is not some "rogue" agent or the "bad apple" in an otherwise barrel of "Good Democrats." She is emblematic of the dishonesty and moral failure to protect the interests of the public among most Democratic officials, at both state and Federal levels. And this lack of any ethical consideration by the Democratic establishment has been shown once again by the election of Senator Charles Schumer of New York a/k/a the Senator for Wall Street, to the position of Senate Minority Leader.

“Wall Street Welcomes Expected Chuck Schumer Promotion,” read a CNN headline on Friday. “It'll be a big plus to have somebody like that if he ends up being Democratic leader,” said former Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who until recently was head of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. “From Main Street issues to the financial issues and everything in between, he's always kept New York at the top his agenda and that will continue as majority leader,” said Izzy Klein, a former staffer of his who now works for the lobbying firm the Podesta Group.

That's right. Schumer's election as minority leader was praised by Republican Senator Judd Gregg, an individual with his own close ties to the TBTF banks our government bailed out while millions of ordinary Americans lost their homes, their jobs and in many instances their lives. Schumer didn't care about the rest of us during the height of the financial crisis. No, his only concern was to protect his friends in the financial industry.

The day after [Schumer] finished meeting with fellow senators about the details of the bailout bill, he attended a fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan with almost two dozen finance industry executives. “We're not going to be some crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive told The New York Times he told them. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.” The executives ended up giving $135,000 at the fundraiser.

These executives had more than his words at the fundraiser to go by. Schumer had in the past “succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent.”

His behavior has changed very little since the crisis. When Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE) introduced an amendment to break up the largest banks, they were able to recruit the support of a handful of GOP senators, but Schumer worked alongside the Obama administration to kill it. He insists that capital gains tax rates stay lower than those of other income, a direct gift to fund managers. And he has kept alive the idea of granting corporations that store cash overseas to bring funds back to the United States if they are granted a large tax cut.

Nominating Clinton and electing Schumer to the powerful position of Senate Minority Leader, even after the complete and utter disaster that befell Democrats in the recent election, demonstrates that the Democratic party, as it is presently constituted, is mired in ethical conflicts regarding their fiduciary obligations to "we, the people of the United States" that its members either ignore, or about which most of them simply do not care.

Perhaps the greatest ethical lapse by Democrats over the last three decades is their repeated claim that they represent the interests of ordinary people rather than large corporations and the powerful, wealthy elites. As the Clinton and Obama administrations proved by their actions to advance the interests of powerful corporate interests, and in the case of Bill Clinton in particular, to destroy the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, especially the African American community, this claim is not merely hypocritical, it is a complete and utter lie. A lie that too many people in America still believe, thanks to the party's extensive disinformation campaign and its other propaganda efforts as ably assisted by a compliant, corporately controlled news media.

I have never expected ethical behavior from the Republican Party. During my lifetime it has almost universally advanced the interests of the wealthy and business interests, and sponged off their largesse. Such was not always the case, however, for the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that Democratic Party, which back in the mid-twentieth century did make the occasional effort to support the interests of the working class and promote policies and laws to assist the poor and advance the rights of minorities, no longer exists. Now spokespersons and public figures representing the party routinely pay lip service to the claim that they are the ones who best represent the interests of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or class, as opposed to the "money power" to use FDR's term. The ugly truth is that Democrats are owned by large corporations and billionaires who donate to their campaigns, "persons" whose interests diverge greatly from those of the vast majority of living, breathing Americans.

Democrats collectively have no values, and have lost any moral authority to which they might once have laid claim. Today, their party is a rotten shell overrun with individuals who see public service only in terms of what it can do for them, as opposed to what they should be doing for us.

I could write a book about their immoral and unethical lapses but others have done that at great length. What else needs to be said?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Interesting report here from Lauren Fox about a Q&A with Sen. Orrin Hatch about Medicare. Hatch makes pretty clear that he supports the Ryan Medicare Phaseout plan (phasing out Medicare and replacing it with private insurance and vouchers.) But he also makes clear that he's reluctant to do it unless Democrats give Republicans cover. As we predicated, a lot of this will come down to whether Democrats give Republicans cover to phaseout Medicare on a notionally bipartisan basis. He also makes clear that he thinks some form of phaseout will be necessary to afford the rest of Trump's agenda. Read.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Hillbilly Dem's picture

Even though they have the House, Senate, White House and soon the USSCA, the Repubs STILL can't destroy Medicare without the acquiescence of their fellow travelers, the Democrats. Medicare is that sacred and the Repubs know it.

They know that if they deep six Medicare without the Dems' votes, that it will be a hammer that each and every Dem can use to defeat almost every Repub up for election. They also know that if the Dems go along for the ride, it's a "push" come election time. "The Dems did it, too!"

I'll bet the Dems will go along with the dismantling of Medicare, saying something like "They have the majorities. This is the best compromise we could get. It would have been worse if we fought!" As if the electorate would ever stand for this 'nuance'. Any Dem who doesn't stand up 100% in favor of Medicare is a traitor to FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and everyone in America in the lower economic 90%, which is 99% of the population, not 90%.

up
0 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

The Republicans want to turn Medicare into Obamacare? Sounds pretty similar: Federal Program, subsidies for private insurance, maybe not mandated but c'mon, seniors need insurance. What a bunch of idiots. And to think it all started with Romneycare, hatched by a right wing think tank. F'n A.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

thanatokephaloides's picture

...... except maybe some of those petitions to changedotorg telling them that this "change" is pure bullshit!

But I'll start reading Crooks and Liars again. That article redeemed them in my eyes!

Wink

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

...although given the difficulty in proving quid pro quo i thibk a more reasonable approach would be "Accept no gifts, those politicians who recieve and those who give such gifts shall be put to death"

I agree with him that when it comes to corruption half matters can't be accepted. That is how you get into the mess we find ourselves in.

up
0 users have voted.
Damnit Janet's picture

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

a slight nod to a wonderful flick Biggrin

((((Steven & cc99%ers)))))

up
0 users have voted.

"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

When Martha Raddatz asked about Clinton Foundation pay to play, her response was:

BRAZILE: First of all, Martha, the way I look at it, I've been a government official. So, you know, this notion that, somehow or another, someone who is a supporter, someone who is a donor, somebody who's an activist, saying I want access, I want to come into a room and I want to meet people, we often criminalize behavior that is normal. And it's -- I don't -- I don’t see what the smoke is.

Even if they twist it around and call it legal, it is still amoral. And voters aren't jurors, they can convict on smoke or smell alone.

up
0 users have voted.

we often criminalize behavior that is normal.

She meant to say "We Often Normalize Criminal Behavior"..

up
0 users have voted.
Bob In Portland's picture

I wish I could find my copy of Elite Deviance.

up
0 users have voted.
Song of the lark's picture

the GOP is beyond the pale. You little pill. This is veering off into ...how can I say this like a rat chewing on the floor boards for sustenance.

up
0 users have voted.
Hillbilly Dem's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Shahryar's picture

one more time that all I need to say is" yeah, that's right!"

up
0 users have voted.

The Democratic Club around the corner from the DNC, a
week after they got control of Congress, installed Lockers for
Cigars and expensive scotch, because the Big Dollar Lobbyists
were all joining the club.

up
0 users have voted.
mouselander's picture

Thoreau wrote that there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one striking at its root. In this essay, you really do get to the crux and root of the problem. The Democratic Party has embraced and promoted a model of fundraising, as well as of gaining personal wealth, power and privilege, that is the living, breathing embodiment of corruption and betrayal of the public trust.

It's curious that the so-called "progressive" members of Congress such as Sanders, Warren and Ellison have been conspicuously silent on this issue. Are they actually part of the Big Con, or are they so timid and defeatist that they can only conceive of working within the boundaries of a morally bankrupt system in order to extract a few crumbs for the commoners?

In a post detailing a generalized business plan for a new political party, I mentioned the necessity of including some kind of binding Public Servant Code of Conduct as a means of not only winning favor with the public, but also ensuring that any new party did not end up becoming as much a snake pit of careerist sell-outs as the current mainstream parties already are. For any plan offered up to reform the Democratic Party to be worth the paper it's written on, it must include a set of strict and enforceable guidelines covering a broad spectrum of potential conflicts of interest.

Is there any chance this will actually happen? The early signs aren't exactly promising. Other than hanging out a sign reading "Business As Usual", it's hard to imagine the Democrats could have given a clearer signal of their intent to keep the old payola machine running at full blast than the elevation of Wall Street's favorite lackey Charles Schumer to the position of Senate minority leader. To be followed, almost certainly, by the reaffirmation of the equally worthless Nancy Pelosi to the corresponding position in the House.

If government could be considered as being akin to a tree, and policy to that tree's fruits, then the lack of any meaningful rules on ethics and conflicts of interest guarantees that for anyone not part of the elite insiders club that tree will be poisonous, and thus the fruits of the tree will be poisonous as well. But trust that our intrepid Democraps will at least be industriously hacking at its branches.

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

Bisbonian's picture

this one needs to be saved somewhere.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

divineorder's picture

cause yet Bernie as of yesterday still calling for them to change their wicked ways.

Read where he still hasn't talked to Clinton since the election. Hard to believe he is serious when he says Clinton deserves to be heard and that Schumer will be a good leader. For who? It's that old style political tradition of speaking well even of your enemies that has always seemed odd to people.

Looks like he would have given up by now?

up
0 users have voted.

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Amanda Matthews's picture

still be a perfect essay.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Raggedy Ann's picture

ROFL

up
0 users have voted.

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Steven D's picture

But then as usual, I couldn't stop myself from adding just a little bit, and then a little bit more ...

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Please, keep on keeping on, Steven - every word you write is informative/insightful/interesting/appreciated!

With the possible exception of 'is'. I have never been able to understand exactly what 'is' is...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.