Did Cicero mean to except rules about paying the taxes of a nanny hired by one's wife? Am I alone in finding it more than a little ironic that Bernard Kerik -- by most accounts a tough street cop whose first goal was getting the job done -- was prevented from getting the post which cried out for such a man because he wasn't squeaky clean?
While I don't know whether the authors envisioned a scenario like this when they wrote the book, I can't think of a more classic illustration of the problem presented in The Appearance of Impropriety than this latest national goatscrew. I'm tired of writing (and I usually take a break on Saturdays), so I hope readers (and James Wolcott) will forgive me if I quote from my own review of the book:
. . . today's corruption is governed by an elaborate, appearance-based regulatory system in which compliance with the rules, by eliminating any real need for personal integrity, places honesty and integrity about on the level of compliance with such things as IRS codes or affirmative action quotas. Thus, the truly corrupt are enabled, and those with genuine integrity are burdened with humiliating and stultifying regulations which would keep many people away from public service. (As the authors note, Dwight Eisenhower was such a notorious rule breaker that it is doubtful that he could survive today's appearance-based scrutiny.)
Actual example of an ethics rule cited by the authors: "...[A] federal worker can legally accept pay for a "comic monologue" -- unless, that is, the government decides that the talk was actually an "amusing speech," in which case the federal worker could be fined $10,000 and drummed out of the service."
All of this and more can be traced to the post-Watergate explosion in ethics reform (a period the authors call "the Big Bang"). This has ended up deepening the entire country's cynicism, not by restoring integrity, but by creating a monstrous system of appearance-based regulations which encourage moralistic posing while actually undermining genuine integrity.
Like Eisenhower, Kerik was an action-oriented, get-things-done kind of guy.
I submit that men of action do not spend their time worrying and fidgeting about things like the proper bureaucratic paperwork for their wives' nannies! In fact, I'd go one further, and suggest that men who do spend their time fussing over such things are not the kind of men we want heading wartime security.
How quickly people forget the nature of September 11 and its aftermath. Anyone remember that Alan Dershowitz (a liberal's liberal if ever there was one) even advocated allowing torture? I for one disagreed with him, because I do not agree that rules against torture should be relaxed in wartime. (Of course, in emergency situations, they'll simply be broken. Illegal torture is in my view far less risky than legal torture.) I mention the advocacy of torture by someone like Dershowitz as a Ciceronian reminder that war changes things dramatically. Obviously, not for the nanny state bureaucrats. They do not consider the country to be at war.
After all, rules are rules.
OK fine. Even if we look at this from a get-tough, everything-by-the-book, viewpoint, why not hire the guy and punish him anyway? Just fine him and/or his wife (for the nanny stuff as well as the stupid condo lawsuit arrest warrant) and let him do his job. (I think he can take the punishment. Just please, spare everyone the moral lecture!)
War is hell. Hell is not for the squeaky clean!
UPDATE: There are allegations here that Kerik may have tried to cover up the nanny tax issue. If this is true, it is much more relevant to his fitness than the nanny issue itself. As the saying goes, the coverup is always worse than the crime. It makes me wonder, though, how many "Mr. Squeaky Cleans" have a successful coverup in their history. . . Would it not be better if penalties for wrongdoing -- assuming such wrongdoing doesn't rise to the level of malum in se/moral right and wrong -- stopped with the actual punishment for the offense? Or am I being hopelessly idealistic?
UPDATE: I thought I was being a bit facetious with my title, but via Glenn Reynolds, I've learned that indeed there's a link between nannies and hell. The road to hell is paved with nannies like this.
posted by Eric on 12.11.04 at 11:18 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1819
Comments
Kerik is saying publicly that he stepped back from the nomination because of a nanny problem, but I think there is another story -- namely, the fact that at one point there were a bunch of arrest warrants against him for a criminal matter here in the New York area ...
Eric, did you hear about this thing where "concerned Americans" are urging the FCC to prosecute NBC for broadcasting their lewd, Classical values opening ceremony of the Olympics? Apparently, there was some suggestive, "fake" nudity in the thing. I watched the whole event and somehow I missed it. Dang it!
bink · December 12, 2004 10:32 AM
Hi bink! Yeah, I read about the arrest warrant, which had something to do with unpaid condominium fees or something equally sordid. I just can't see the need for a national morality pageant over these malum prohibitum offenses. I'm not saying the law should be ignored, but why not just let him clean it up, pay the penalty, and perform his work? This national obsession with being squeaky clean is much bigger than Kerik; it's a major reason why many well-qualified people cannot serve in any public capacity.
As to the "Classical values opening ceremony" at the Olympics, I am outraged. OUTRAGED! I haven't been paid a cent, and I demand my rights!
Have to discipline him. He keeps forgetting who won World War II.
Speaking of discipline, when I think of the Olympics these days I keep thinking of holy Norma's holy captive wife Dawn who twice broke the world's record in women's weight-lifting by lifting a whole bunch of extremely fat women.
I must discipline myself accordingly, I must strive to live up to Dawn's high ideals. I must do much, much, _much_ more masturbating for her. MUCH more! I must continue worshipping that pulchritudinous picture of her.
This has to be the biggest story of the year. A man has risen to a position of power and influence who is not squeaky clean.
A certain Rabbi, a long time ago, came across a mob about to execute a woman for certain indiscretions (which were at that time somewhat less tolerated than now).
He said, "OK, you say she's guilty, and the law must be observed. Go ahead. But let's have those of you who have nothing on your record throw the first stones."
One by one, they left.
As you say, the job Kerik was up for is one that demands a man of action. The only people who have made no mistakes are the people who have done nothing.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Kerik is saying publicly that he stepped back from the nomination because of a nanny problem, but I think there is another story -- namely, the fact that at one point there were a bunch of arrest warrants against him for a criminal matter here in the New York area ...
Eric, did you hear about this thing where "concerned Americans" are urging the FCC to prosecute NBC for broadcasting their lewd, Classical values opening ceremony of the Olympics? Apparently, there was some suggestive, "fake" nudity in the thing. I watched the whole event and somehow I missed it. Dang it!