Elect based upon technical skill or upon ethics?

A Grandfather to a Grandson: Evaluate Candidates based upon technical expertise or ethics?

A grandfather’s ears are like radar. They detect movement and direction. At times those elderly ears discern that something might be “off course.’’ Such was the case in recent days when one grandfather heard one grandson put forth a proposition that, “A candidate for office ought to be evaluated on the basis of technical expertise rather than upon ethical considerations of character.”

Now, it could be that the grandson was uttering what he had heard in an academic setting, and that the proposition was solely rhetorical. Something to be put forth in a debate. Yet, it also might be that the grandfather’s “radar” had detected movement along an azimuth leading to potentially catastrophic consequences.

Given that the 18-year-old grandson is soon to be venturing into the voting booth, the questions surrounding “candidates” and their “ethical qualifications” are no longer an academic exercise.

Hence these grandfatherly thoughts on the matter:

Nothing, make that NOTHING, is more important than a candidate’s ethics, honesty, and truthfulness! Notice, please, that this statement does not include the word “religion.” Humans are quite capable of behaving ethically, honestly, and truthfully with or without the influences of organized religions. All humans (even Shakespeare well knew this) have the capacity for good and for evil. Psychologists and other students of human behavior delight in delving into the “nature vs. nurture” questions posed by this dilemma. But, let us leave that topic to the social scientists for now, and take aim on the more practical considerations as they apply to candidates for public office.

Note first this from an English essayist: “There can be no friendship without confidence, and no confidence without integrity.” – Samuel Johnson

Now before I offer examples clarifying why NOTHING is more important than a candidate’s ethics, honesty, and truthfulness, allow me to make clear some differences between public office and private enterprise. You should not discern from these remarks that ethics, honesty, and truthfulness do not apply to those engaged in private enterprise, the world of business. Some of the examples I offer below will help make that clear. But there is a major difference to note: those engaged in private enterprise are using their own funds (or the funds of investors) while those engaged in public office are using public funding (my taxes and yours). Keep this in mind as we proceed. It is a distinction of major importance.

Let’s begin with a hypothetical case

Students in a high school homeroom class decide to collect funds so that the class can offer a scholarship to the daughter of a firefighter who has perished while fighting a fire. All students contribute from their own resources: their own savings, portions of their earnings from part-time jobs, and funds they collect from other persons. The students elect classmates to take care of fund-raising responsibilities. One of these is the project team leader, another is the treasurer, and another heads up publicity campaigns. Within six months they collect $15,000.00. They plan an event at which they will make the donation to a special bank account set up for the grieving family. One day before the event, however, they discover that their collected funds have disappeared. The treasurer explains that he invested the funds in the stock market, but that he lost rather than gained in the transactions. The funds are no more. Later, investigation reveals that the treasurer actually spent the $15,000.00 on a ski trip in the Canadian Rockies. He used public funding for his own self-interest. And, yes, the treasurer here is guilty of a crime: misappropriation of funds, theft, and fraud (the deception regarding having invested the money).

Let’s move to real-life cases

The examples I’m offering here are reconstructions of actual events that did happen, do happen, and are presently happening. Anyone who so wishes can find published media reports which reveal such examples.

First recall, however, that whether elected or appointed, public officials are paid by the public to perform tasks for and on behalf of the public. In short, they work for the public. They are provided funding, resources, equipment, buildings, and employees (who themselves are public employees) with the specific intent that they use these things to benefit all citizens. They are “entrusted” with money and assets, our money and our assets. When they abuse that trust, misuse those assets, they are in violation of that trust, and often are engaging in criminal activity. That is why ethics, honesty, and truthfulness are of utmost importance as we consider candidates for public office.

Examples: (The term “office-holder” could be a President, a legislator (house or senate), a state governor, a mayor, or any other elected or appointed public official.) All of these are examples of wrong-doing, fraudulent activity, crimes, currently being done (or recently done) by “public officials.”

• A candidate spends campaign funds to hide the fact that he has been having an affair with a woman.

• A candidate’s assistant spends campaign funds to have his personal ‘’dream home’’ built.

• A governor collects “hidden payment” in return for his approval of a construction project. (Legally, he should approve or disapprove as a function of his office.)

• A congressman accepts a “campaign contribution” in return for his vote which provides federal funding for a construction contract. The donor (of the “campaign contribution’’) is the construction contractor!

• A senator spends taxpayer funding to pay expenses for his own re-election campaign.

• A White House cabinet member (federal employee) spends lavishly (public money) for personal “pleasures” while in Las Vegas (ostensibly on business.).

• A dozen White House security staffers (Secret Service) (yes, those are public employees using public money) spend money and time with prostitutes while they should have been arranging security for a presidential visit to Colombia.

• A senator votes for funding for “agricultural subsidies” when he, himself, is the recipient for such funds.

• A federal employee plans a trip to Alaska. He adds the “airline miles” to his own mileage account. Later he uses the “miles” for a personal trip for himself and his family. Incidentally, the trip to Alaska was not necessary. The “business” could have been conducted via teleconference.

• A senator pushes a bill through Congress to build a federal highway in his state when the highway itself is not needed. Huge amounts in federal funding are spent in his state, benefitting the senator (at reelection time). Those same funds could have been used to pay down the national debt.

• A President uses his staff (clerks, assistants, typists) and materials (time, paper, printing ink, computers) in an effort to defend himself in court for a personal wrongdoing.

• A federal employee attends evening college classes to gain a master’s degree in business administration. During the day, while at work, he uses his office computer to do research for a term paper; he prints his research paper on the office computer.

There are other such cases. Most of these are examples of “embezzlement.” If you do not know what embezzlement is, you, and all too many American taxpayers, are part of the problem. If you know that elected or appointed officials are doing these things, and you take no action, technically you are “aiding and abetting” a criminal in the commission of a crime.

These are ethical and moral issues. And, yes, voters should, and must, take such things as these into account when considering candidates.

If a man steals a little, chances are good he’ll steal a lot.

If a man lies to his wife, chances are he will lie to the public.

If a man does not keep his commitments with his family, chances are he will not honor his oath of office.

If a man uses deception to get elected, chances are he’ll use deception to remain elected.

If a man cheats to get through college, chances are he’ll cheat when employed.

Hence, much more than technical expertise and “knowledge” is demanded of candidates for public office.

Keep this in mind when it is time to cast your vote.