Loyalty - to whom and to what - it matters

"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." -- E. M. Forster

The quote is an example of a kind of loyalty I would rather not see in those who would be our political leaders.  I neither want personal loyalty up to the leader by his or her subordinates, nor by the leader down to protect them.  I think we have experienced the deleterious affects of this far too much during the current administration.  And in a sense some of the bad choices we see made by some Congressional Democrats seem derived from the same "principle" of loyalty.

We have a real opportunity to have a national discussion of this, thanks in part to Bernie Kerik and Rudy Giuliani.  When the editorial page of the New York Times has both an official editorial and a major op ed piece to address the subject, perhaps it is also legitimate for a blogger to also opine, hence I have written this diary.
The Times editorial is entitled Indicting Mr. Kerik and the op ed, by Gail Collins, has the title  of Rudy and Bernie: B.F.F.'s.  Since the Collins piece is directly on the subject of loyalty, allow me to begin by quoting the beginning:

The past seven years have given us some helpful hints on what we want to avoid in the next president. I'm starting to make a list.

Quality to avoid No. 1: Loyalty.

Whenever you read that a candidate "values loyalty above all else" - run for the hills. Loyalty is a terribly important consideration if you're choosing a pet, but not a cabinet member.

How about if this time we try for a president who would recruit gifted people who can accomplish great things, as opposed to a room full of dopes who will never write tell-all memoirs?

Now, I actually think that final paragraph is probably more applicable to the relationship of Alberto Gonzales to George Bush, as Kerik is enough of an egotist to write whatever he damn well pleases, but I take her point, one which she frames additionally in one short paragraph about September 11:

On the terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001, Kerik was with the mayor as Giuliani left the disaster at ground zero, searching for a telephone to contact the outside world. Also loyally at the mayor's side were three deputy mayors, the fire commissioner and the head of the Office of Emergency Management. They all walked north, in a little command-clump, intent on the central mission of protecting their main man. You would have thought, really, that the protecting job could have been done by youthful aides while the alleged leaders tended to the fire, emergency and police problems downtown.

Giuliani has attempted to give Kerik cover by claiming what a good job he did as police commissioner, even though, as Collins rightly points out, the apparatus that contributed to New York's improvements in addressing crime were the product of Keri's predecessor, Bill Bratton,

But Bratton was not particularly loyal, in the sense that he did his job well, then enjoyed taking credit for it himself. And so he was gone.

It is of course interesting to see the focus the nation's Newspaper of Record is giving to the Kerik situation. Perhaps the second paragraph of today's lead editorial explains why:

Because of Mr. Giuliani's role in Mr. Kerik's life, the nation has a compelling interest in learning more about the former police chief's misdeeds.

Collins points out that a key chapter of Giuliani's book Leadership is entitled "Loyalty, the Vital Virtue."  That makes one sentence from the official editorial an important indicator, and I quote

Yesterday's indictment and Mr. Kerik's whole troubled record raise questions about Mr. Giuliani's judgment.

As recently as this week, Mr. Giuliani made the remarkable statement that any mistakes Mr. Kerik made were outweighed by his success in fighting crime - presumably not including the crimes Mr. Kerik himself was committing. Mr. Giuliani has since spoken more critically of him, but the public is entitled to know more.

Two important questions are precisely what are the mistakes the former mayor thinks he made in trusting Mr. Kerik, and how can voters be sure that he would not make them again as president, when the stakes for a disastrous appointment would be so much higher.

Collins offers other examples of misplaced loyalty on the part of Giuliani, including his giving a job to the totally unqualified son of the head of the Liberal Party in New York, an appointee

who wound up embezzling more than $400,000 for vacations, gifts and parties. We will not even go into the pornography part, except to point out in his defense that of the 15,000 sexually explicit images found on his computer, only a few were of children.

There are only two more paragraphs in Collins' piece, each of two sentences.  The penultimate paragraph frames the issue of loyalty clearly:

The Giuliani version of loyalty, which bears a terrifying resemblance to the George W. Bush brand of loyalty, is entirely about self-protection. An administration safe beneath the loyalty cone does not have to worry much about leaks to the press, or even whistle-blowing.

And the final paragraph reminds us of the cost of such loyalty, as experienced by New Yorkers:

People can screw up, or fail to achieve their missions, knowing the guy at the top will protect them as long as they put his well-being ahead of anything else. When disaster strikes, the whole world may be falling apart, but they will all be clumped together, walking north.

I have a simple test for those who would seek my support for political office.  Let me frame it by two quotes, one applicable for those who seek the highest official office in the land, and the other for those seeking any other office.

For presidential aspirants:

''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

And for the others:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by Forster, as much as I might admire his work as a writer.  I expect a certain amount of loyalty to friends, but I expect something more, especially from those who would seek to act in position of political leadership.

Perhaps it is because I teach government, am a student of history, and have been a member of minority religions.  My loyalty is to an ideal, one expressed perhaps incompletely in the founding of this nation - I acknowledge that founding included neither women nor blacks as full members  of the political society being established.  I am all too much aware of the history of discrimination and repression that has been a continuing strand in this nation.  My own involvement in civil rights stems directly from recognizing that the ideals espoused in our founding were not accessible to all who lived here, and I found that intolerable. 

Barbara Jordan expressed as well as anyone  my commitment to the ideals of the Constitution, in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of her statement to the House Judiciary Committee when it began its work on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon on July 25, 1974.  I was spending some time living with some Benedictine monks, who broke from their normal practice of only watching TV on Sunday afternoons because of the importance of the occasion.  I was electrified by her words, which I offer to you:

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

My political participation is driven by the same principle espoused by Barbara Jordan: And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.  My political support is conditioned upon the commitment to those principle of the person who seek my support. That is the only test of loyalty I will acknowledge or accept.

I will not say "My country, right or wrong, still my country" because when my country is wrong I consider it my obligation to challenge it precisely because it is my country.  That is my loyalty, and it is the kind of loyalty I hope to find in those who seek high office on our behalf.

The occasion of this diary is the indictment of Bernard Kerik and the implications of that indictment for the political future of Rudy Giuliani.  But the questions that arise are far broader.  At what point do the political tactics and strategies of Democratic politicians become an abandonment of the Constitutional principles upon which this nation and society should be based?  How far should our desire to see political change carry us in what could be an inappropriate loyalty to people merely because they have a D instead of an R after their names? 

The future of our nation is very much at risk.  Unwillingness to take every legal and moral measure to prevent the approval of a man who refuses to fully disavow torture seems to me to be disloyal to the principles for which many have struggled, fought, and died. 

I would not want Forster's words to be my epitaph, and I hope historians looking back would not say that the loss of the American dream and vision was because too many people accepted those words. 

We need to challenge, to ask our current and potential Democratic leaders wherein is their loyalty, to what to they bind themselves, for what are they willing to give up their position and power?

There is only one way I can close this piece, and it is with the final words of our founding document, which appear ust before the name of John Hancock and the others in Philadelphia:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Absent a similar commitment, we have no honor, and lives and fortunes are without meaning or merit.

Peace.

Comments