 |
|
|
||
|
The Tao of D.C.
The secret wisdom of Washington's |
|||
|
Posted Friday, March 23, 2001 My colleague Michael Kinsley recently argued in Slate that "there is something unreal about the moral outrage, especially in Washington, over the idea that an official act might have been influenced by money or that someone might be cashing in on his or her proximity to the powerful." Cashing in on proximity to the powerful--or, if you happen to be the powerful, letting yourself be influenced by cash--accounts for much of Washington's economy, Kinsley notes. Why the "gap between high dudgeon at Bill Clinton [over his pardons] and utterly uncontroversial acceptance of so much else?" Well, there's one obvious reason for the Outrage Gap. While no large difference may distinguish Clinton's decision-making process from what Washington pols do every day, the complaint about the Marc Rich pardon isn't mainly about process. It's about substance. The decision was shameful even if reached by the cleanest process imaginable. It sent a particularly awful message to kids in underclass neighborhoods, where it validated the gangsta worldview that the system is unfair, that all that matters is the Benjamins, and that if you work hard and play by the rules you're a sucker. Given the disastrous substance of Clinton's action, people are naturally going to wonder why he did it, whether the process was corrupt, etc. If he'd granted a regulatory shortcut to a firm whose drug cured cancer, nobody would be upset at the firm's donations to his library. A second, less obvious point is that there may well be a qualitative "process" distinction between the Rich pardon and ordinary Washington corruption, at least as far as "cashing in on proximity to the powerful"--Rich lawyer Jack Quinn's sin--is concerned. As Marjorie Williams reported in a recent column, Quinn is now in bad odor with the local influence-peddling community. What code has he violated? What did he do differently? Simple: He lobbied his ex-boss in a way that got his ex-boss into trouble.
Williams puts the unwritten local code in the
mouth of a politician: "When you guys come around
on behalf of your clients, you're supposed to be
looking out for us, too. You don't ask for anything
that's too hard to give. You don't put your former
boss in harm's way by squeezing him for anything
that could end up on the front page." Slate's Jacob
Weisberg, likewise, identified Quinn's betrayal of
Clinton's interest (not his client's) as his central
transgression:
Who's right? I say Weisberg. There are two competing ethical systems here--normal lawyers' ethics and Washington lawyers' ethics. In normal legal ethics, there's no such thing as representing a client too vigorously. The whole idea is to pursue the client's interest monomaniacally, undistracted by conflicting interests. (It's the judge who is supposed to take everything into account.) In D.C., things are more complicated. Quinn, according to the local ethic, was supposed to have a conflict of interest. He should have taken into account his patron's ultimate political interest, as well as his client's immediate interest. And it's precisely these conflicts--having the trust of a patron like the president or a key congressman--that make Washington lawyers valuable. Indeed, you hire them because of their conflicts--because in some sense they're trusted by all sides. Washington lawyer Edward Bennett Williams once famously represented three sides in a transaction--a gross violation of legal ethics, but not necessarily of Washington ethics. In this comparison, there's a lot to be said for the Washington way. The most efficient place to balance competing interests (as Kinsley himself noted a few decades ago) is in a human being's head, not in a courtroom. An elaborate adversarial contest between unyielding champions might be called for in criminal court, but it's an unwieldy way to govern. And the standard non-Washington lawyers' approach brings its own ethical dilemmas. (Should it really be a lawyer's highest duty to call in all his chips to get a break for a midnight polluter? Tax evader? Foreign dictator?) Tempering ordinary legal zeal with the self-interest of political "patrons" is one way of taking into account the public interest, since those patrons are elected and punishable by the public. Not "putting Clinton in harm's way," in Quinn's case, would have involved stopping him from doing something really bad that caused him to plummet in the polls. The more intriguing issue is whether this small concession to the public interest--call it the Quinn proviso ("thou shalt not embarrass your patron")--is what enables the larger, corrupt structure of Washington lobbying to stand. The result, after all, is a system in which you can peddle influence all you want as long as it's about little, arcane things (or big things around the margins). But what's the alternative? A system filled with abusers like Quinn couldn't survive--politicians will inevitably seek out people they trust, and those people will have influence. (That's why Quinn's lobbying practice may not, in the long run, benefit so much from his Rich triumph. What senator is going to trust him?) I'd prefer a system that venerated and accepted only idealist-lobbyists who wouldn't take a cause unless they were actually convinced of its righteousness--and who'd then take it whether or not they were paid for it. But that would require expanding and extending the quirky Washington "trust" rule that Quinn violated. Mocking it as hypocritical isn't a good way to start. New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on kausfiles.com. [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.] | ||||
|
Recently archived:
Run, Joe, Run!
The journalist who should run for mayor in New York.
Will Sex Save Bill Clinton?
Now it's his enemies who don't want him caught cheating. ...
Yet Another Rich Theory
Plus: Ann Powers' pretentious Britney-crit! ...
Shaw Must Go On!
Series-SkipperTM grunches the LAT's Pulitzer-winning pontificator. ...
The Post's Deadly "Deadlock"
Introducing the kausfiles' Series-SkipperTM service. ...
Why It's OK to be Shocked by Mr. Clinton's Recent Misbehavior
He was always shameless. This is new. ...
The Miami Herald Blows Its Pulitzer
Why count only the "undervotes"?
The Haiku Are Back!
The controversy-plagued "hit poem" contest returns.
Gore's Secret Electoral Majority
He's more legitimate than he lets on.
Are Pregnant Chad Liberal?
Compassion for ballot bump-makers.
Gore vs. the Mysterious Forces
The trouble with the Democrats' Shrumarama in L.A..
Cheney: Cheerleader for OPEC
Let those Yankees in key Midwest battleground states freeze in the dark!
Bush and Cheney: The Secret Transcripts
Crock of Goldstein
WaPo welfare reporter falls for Brookings spin, and worse.
The Real Hillary Scandal
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton forgot to get their stories straight.
The Gift of Nader
Gore could use a rival on his left.
Rehnquist's Scandalous Shmatte
Did he deduct that $30,000 robe?
What's He Hiding?
Notes toward a unified Bush theory.
Special Re-Flogging Edition
More on WaPo's hypocritical critic.
CBS's Defective Defector
60 Minutes adopts Internet news standards.
Looking for Mr. Good Death
Mickey's Assignment Desk #8.
Another Greenhouse Effect
Resurgence of "labor resurgence" stories puzzles experts.
Crosswired Politics
Why the parties are trading places on some issues.
The Toobin Crisis, Day 141
Ann Godoff vs. Charles Peters.
The Purnick Platform
The new NYT lets it all hang out.
Run, Peggy, Run!
The best anti-Hillary candidate.
Kuttner's Poor Statistics
Have child poverty rates 'scarcely moved'?
Drew's Cluelessness
Please don't let her anywhere near the First Amendment.
Why Gore Won't Pick Richardson
An impolite thought ....
How Convenient!
Now McCain tells us.
Now She's Done It
Maybe that nice centrist Mrs. Clinton really is against welfare reform.
Pardon Our Reporting
Clinton left the door wide open!
Elian: An Overlooked Angle?
Castro did Clinton a big favor last year.
Boomers Against Death
The shift against the death penalty isn't necessarily a shift to the left.
The Perfect Campaign
All e-mail, all the time!
No Justice, No Paez
The LAT and 'judicial activism.'
Kausfiles Battles for the Vital Center!
Why Bush has plenty of time to reposition himself.
Clean Sheets
The case for selling the Lincoln Bedroom.
Don't Push It, Hillary
Plus: kausfiles moves its cheese!
Faster Politics
Why 'momentum' ain't what it used to be.
Jeffrey Toobin, Chicken!
Fifth of a series.
Hillary's Shocking Truth
Plus: the Nissan Cojones Watch.
Hit Poems
A kausfiles contest.
Gore's Press Problem
Plus: How he blew his chance for a New Hampshire knockout.
Bush Knows What "Regatta" Means
Bradley's SATS; the media's moodswing; the neolibs' nightmare.
Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite, Part III!
How dare Isikoff write a book, says Toobin in his book.
Not Gotcha
Why Gore's gay flip was a genuine gaffe.
Pay Up, Shrum!
Litmus test flip-flop smoking gun.
Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite
'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone?
Cuomo Family Values
Did Mario raise his son to be Hillary's Boy?
DeParle Gets Half the Story
The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor.
Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare!
Is this the dole administration after all?
The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark
Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt?
Yes, There Are Easy Answers!
The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action.
Who Stole Nissan's Cojones?
Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah!
Doesn't Anyone Want to Be Famous?
The political opportunity of a lifetime.
The Ending of the Black
Underclass, Part XVIII
African-American welfare receipt falls to new low.
Just Buzz Me!
Synergy City! Harvey Weinstein plans a TV show based on Talk.
Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the
Devil? A review of the evidence to date.
Harvey Scores Again! An
exciting new Talk contest.
Is It Over? Clinton's Pathetic
Second Term Revealing the one Big Thing he still might accomplish.
Maybe Bush Didn't Snort
Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery.
George Bush, Drug Pioneer?
Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream.
Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth.
Copyright 2001 Mickey Kaus.
|
|||
