|
ETHICS: THE ACHILLES HEEL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
by Herb Rubenstein
CEO, Herb Rubenstein Consulting
Introduction
If the Democratic
Party is supposed to be the party of the “people,” and
the Republican Party is the party of “big business,”
why did the recent wave of corporate ethical scandals help the Republican
Party and hurt the Democratic Party? Answering this question lays
bare some disturbing news for the Democratic Party.
The
Historical Context
The 1950’s
and 1980’s Republican presidencies were almost totally free
of scandal and charges of corruption. Eisenhower, Regan and Bush,
Sr. had, in the voter’s eyes, moral integrity, strong character,
honesty and decency. The Democratic Presidencies of the 1960’s
had, in the voters’ eyes, a President who lied about the Vietnam
war, one who hid extramarital affairs and was perceived by many
to have strong ties to the mafia, and Democratic Presidents genuinely
considered by the voters to be opportunists, not decent men and
certainly not men of high moral integrity or character. The late
1960’s through the early 1970’s ushered in a Republican
liar and crook who resigned. He was followed by a Democrat who was
as honest as he was ineffective. The shift from Nixon/Agnew to Carter/Mondale
was a profound shift from the lowest level of integrity of any tag
team duo this century (remember Agnew was a tax cheat) to the highest
ethical standards imaginable in a Carter/Mondale team that could
not run the government or gain the voters’ confidence. Reagan/Bush,
Sr. continued the high integrity Carter/Mondale legacy and successfully
combined foreign policy successes and good luck on the economy to
forge eight straight years of political success. Bush, Sr. maintained
high ethical standards in the minds of voters, but became detached
from the voters and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in
Iraq just as he did in the 1992 election. Bush lost to Clinton because
the Democrats correctly saw the need for a new combination of personality
traits to be lodged in the White House. Clinton was (is) brilliant
and personable. Clinton would never become detached from the voters.
He was the ultimate pragmatist handling Republicans (and their voters)
win after win on welfare reform, balancing the budget, helping business
reap record profits and staying out of war.
While the country
shifted 180° from Nixon/Agnew to Carter/Mondale, (for the ethical
betterment), the Democratic Party shifted 180° from Carter/Mondale
to Clinton/Gore (for the greatest ethical decline witnessed this
century in the passing of the political torch).
This catastrophic ethical decline at the top of the Democratic Party
led to the Republicans fielding a team (Bush/Cheney) that gave the
impression to
people that they like the Carter/Reagan legacy had high moral integrity,
were honest and had strong character. Gore tried to shore up his
integrity/character/honesty deficit with the choice of Lieberman.
He got a huge bounce in the polls. But he learned that while voters
may “vote” for a vice-presidential candidate in the
polls in July, they do not vote for them in November in the polling
booth.
The ethical
debacle at the Democratic top cost the party the Presidency in 2000,
just as the Nixon/Agnew ethical debacle cost the Republicans the
election in 1976.
The Republicans
also benefited in 1980 because they copied the ethical high ground
of the Democrats and offered the hope that their candidate could
actually get something done as President. They painted Carter as
an ineffective President. In 2002, wherever Clinton campaigned the
Democrats lost and Gore barely showed up for the 2002 election,
thus abdicating any claim he might have to the 2004 Democratic Nomination.
His decision not to seek the nomination only confirmed his withdrawal
from politics which took place in 2001 shortly after the election.
Today, the Republican
Party stands alone in the voters’ minds as holding the ethical
high ground. Although I would wager that a majority of the corporate
scandals could be laid at the feet of people who are registered
Republicans, the voters are not holding Republican politicians accountable
for the current ethical violations of Republicans in big business.
In fact, since Republican politicians are considered by voters to
be more honest, have more integrity and have stronger ethical values,
business scandals help Republican candidates since a majority of
voters believe Republican candidates will be more vigorous in cleaning
up these scandals and enforcing the laws to punish the wrongdoers,
even if they are Republicans.
This dilemma
is at the heart of the Democratic Party’s woes, not helped
by Toricelli, Louisiana’s Edwards or other high powered Democrats
considered universally to be “ethical losers.”
If the Democratic
Party does not find a way to at least equal the Republicans on the
“ethics” front, it will become a long term minority
party because it is unlikely that the Republicans will ever choose
crooks like Nixon or Agnew again to head up a Presidental ticket.
They learned their lesson. It now
remains to be seen if the Democrats have learned this same lesson.
back |
