Demanding Accountability: Ending the Spitzer-Craig Legacy

Posted on April 10th, 2008 Andrew G. Mandelbaum 1 comment  Print This Post

Since proposing that the U.S. political parties implement codes of conduct to provide their officials a disincentive for engaging in corrupt and illegal behaviors, I’ve taken the question of politicians’ sense of immunity around Washington. My formulation of the question usually goes sort of like this:

“Recently, we’ve seen a number of U.S. politicians get into trouble – and even ruin their political careers – by having sex with people other than their spouses and getting caught in the cover-up. How can we put an end to this practice? These acts – and I’m talking about the cover-ups – fuel the perception of the power-hungry politician serving his own interests at the expense of his constituents. And yet, the true victims in this game are the political parties and the political system, which become the target of the people’s frustration and despair. Meanwhile, ‘legal’ law has done little to deter politicians from this type of conduct. [This is where the question deviates depending on the intended respondent]. So what can the political parties do to prevent their officials and operatives from engaging in such behaviors? Can they provide a credible disincentive by enacting and enforcing codes of conduct to withdraw party support from those who hurt the party? What is the role of the primary/campaign system in recruiting people who seem time-and-again to make the same mistake? Does our political system attract certain personality types? Where does responsibility lie for the persistence of this phenomenon?”

DNC Chair Howard Dean thought a code of conduct unnecessary. He argued that Nancy Pelosi had established a credible threat by pulling Representative William J. Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee after he was investigated by the FBI for corruption. I intervened stating that such disciplining may have some effect, but that it did little to institutionalize such standards within the fabric of the party. Moreover, I suggested, there could be an electoral benefit for the party that takes concrete steps toward ending the sense of impunity that characterizes the political culture. Dean retorted that codes of conduct need teeth and that the Republicans’ Contract with America failed because it was unenforceable. My Democracy & Governance colleagues then protested that establishing enforcement would require hurting the party in the process. Indeed, this would be an unfortunate but necessary consequence; although one that could pay off in the long run.

A panel of election reform experts at the FSDA’s (that’s us) “Assessing American Democracy” event seemed somewhat taken aback by my question. The only response came from Patrick Basham of the Cato and Democracy Institutes, who suggested that the length of the primary system provides ample opportunity to vet the candidates and get all those skeletons out of the closet. While this is true, our protracted electoral process can only be withstood by those that are risk-seeking, self-absorbed, and power-hungry. After all, who can listen to – let alone utter – that same old stump speech over and over again? What’s scarier is that they probably begin to believe themselves.

For Governor Dean’s part, I would have been more satisfied if he argued (probably correctly) that neither the DNC nor any other Democratic Party (or Republican Party) establishment is equipped with the authority to implement and enforce a code of conduct. But now at least we know that the political will is lacking. And with all due respect to Howard Dean, why shouldn’t it be?

Republicans and Democrats have created a political system with impressive job security. Aside from a major shift in public opinion against the governing party, pulling a ‘Spitzer’ or a ‘Craig’ is about the only way for an incumbent to lose his seat. While it’s true that no member of Congress likes to see his district redrawn, no member of Congress doesn’t mind doing it himself. We should not expect this tit-for-tat to end any time soon; the will to survive almost always trumps the will to reform. If we want to end the Spitzer-Craig legacy, we are going to need to make political will where it does not presently exist. That’s, of course, if we’re not already too inured by the false promises of bipartisanship to compel accountable and responsible governance.