TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/060391/0603510.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 12.4 KB | 307 lines

                                                                                INTERVIEW, Page 9

An Ethical Guru Monitors Morality


Lobbyists once handed out $10,000 checks on the floor of the
state senate. Now former Congresswoman BARBARA JORDAN is trying
to clean up Texas government.

By BONNIE ANGELO and Barbara Jordan


    Q. Your new post as Governor Ann Richards' special counsel
on ethics is unique in this country, probably the world. What's
the purpose of the job?

    A. I am the ethics guru. I question the Governor's
proposed appointees about matters that are ethically sensitive,
help raise their sensitivity quotient. It's the things that are
not blatant that get you into trouble. This is not just an
initial push and then you forget about it, but a constant
companion for the duration.


    Q. Have you done any good yet?

    A. In screening appointments, I counseled against the
appointment of one individual, who did not get it. I've spoken
at training sessions for appointees. I presented a hypothetical
case and asked the audience how they would respond. I presented
the case of an appointee who needs to attend a meeting and is
offered the use of a corporate aircraft by a person interested
in a contract with his agency. Do you compromise yourself and
accept this apparently innocent invitation? Do you issue a
disclaimer that it will not affect any future contracts? My
advice: Buy your own ticket.


    Q. Sounds as if John Sununu and others could use some of
your advice in Washington.

    A. There are any number of people in Washington who strain
credulity to state the rationale to justify their actions. But
Sununu was too greedy; he should not have become the frequent
flyer he did. If you are going to be ethically insensitive, at
least be insensitive in moderation.


    Q. What about the Congressmen and their wives flying on a
military plane to Paris for the air show -- all their expenses
taxpayer-paid?

    A. It is not right; it is not correct; it should not
occur. These things may not be illegal, but it is so important
for a public servant to sort out what is legal from what is
ethical. I tell appointees, "You must not engage in any
fine-line drawing." Ed Meese as Attorney General did that many
times. It is not enough for the Attorney General to say, "I have
not violated the law."


    Q. How did your job come into being?

    A. Governor Richards made ethics a primary focus of her
campaign, because there have been so many allegations of
lobbyists' influence peddling, vote buying, bribery, that sort
of thing. In 1989 we were treated to the spectacle of a lobbyist
going onto the floor of the Texas Senate and handing out $10,000
checks. There was some legislation in which he was interested,
so he just said, "We have a gift for you." It was that blatant.


    Q. But don't most people think, cynically, that politics
is a crooked business?

    A. I am very disheartened by the public perception of
politicians not having the public welfare at heart because I
absolutely believe politics is an honorable profession. I wish
more people would see politicians as public servants, because
that's what they are.


    Q. Yet in almost every session of Congress some ethical
scandal arises. How do you explain that?

    A. When ethical problems arise, the base is usually some
act of greed or self-interest or money. I believe only a very
small percentage of people who are in public office are guilty
of wrongdoing, of abusing their public trust. But then I look
at those people in public office who run against government --
and that, I think, is one reason why the role of the politician
is so diminished in the eyes of the public.

    I really was incensed when the President, just before last
November's elections, started running against Washington,
against Congress, against the very policies he had been so
integral in developing. Then what can you expect in terms of
public perception?


    Q. Would the proposed term limitation for Congress raise
political standards?

    A. This whole business of term limitations is a
wrongheaded move. That's not the way you correct wrongdoing.
What you're doing is muting the people's voice for some
short-term political benefit.


    Q. What would be your first change?

    A. The greatest change, the No. 1 change, has to be in the
way we fund political campaigns. It is the money that has
become an obscenity, has been so corrupting. I would like to see
some limitation on how much money you can pour into a political
contest. But there will not be a change until there is enough
of a public outcry demanding it.


    Q. It is argued that the Keating Five were only doing what
any Senator does on behalf of large contributors. Would you
agree?

    A. Until we get genuine campaign finance reform we will
have public officials like the Keating Five doing constituency
service for wealthy constituents. But as long as there is the
appearance that you are selling your office, the public is going
to have a negative reaction.

    I do not think these Senators sold their office or their
soul, but what they did was to get on the most-favored
congressional list of this Charles Keating, a man who had a lot
of money. In order to curry favor with this wealthy constituent,
you do things that will be helpful to him in his business. So
unless we change the system of campaign finance, we're going to
have incidents like the Keating Five occur time and time again.


    Q. But campaigning by television requires huge amounts of
money. Can any politician escape the money trap now?

    A. I doubt it. I would like for one to try, however. I'd
like for somebody to get out there and see if they could do it.
People want politicians who are honest and credible, and if they
could just know that you're going to do a bang-up job for them,
they'll help you, they'll vote for you.

    But we've got so far away from the politicians' selling
themselves personally. We just let money and sound bites and
30-second spots do it -- and that's not the way the republic is
supposed to be run.


    Q. Are we scrutinizing politicians so harshly, demanding
that they give up so much for public office, that we're keeping
many good men and women out of politics?

    A. We're keeping some out, but when you get into the
arena, you know what the arena requires. You know it's going to
be tough, you're going to be asked some very hard questions,
your privacy is going to be stripped away. But when you offer
yourself for office, you have to expect that. You must, or not
seek office.

    My strong feeling is that the best people, those who
really have what it takes to be good in the office, can be
talked into making the effort, because the primary pull on those
people must be that they can serve the public in a good way.


    Q. Could it be that our ethical standards are more
stringent now than in the past?

    A. No. I think there are certain enduring ethical
standards, enduring values that don't change with the times. My
definition of the ethical public servant is one who acts in the
public interest, who is truthful, credible, honest, and who is
able to turn from greed and selfhood to think in terms of
others.


    Q. What about ethics in other callings, the sorry mess in
the savings and loan associations, the scandals on Wall Street
and among TV evangelists?

    A. I believe those who hold public office are held to a
higher ethical standard than those in other professions. That
is as it should be. However, other professions do have codes of
ethics. There is almost unanimity on certain basic values, which
are enduring, whether you are a journalist or in the business
world.

    The only thing that differs between other professions and
politics is that there is the requirement for the politician not
to be selfish. In the other professions, people act in their own
interest, and if they go too far in their own interest, they
will run afoul of the law.


    Q. But neither a code of ethics nor the law kept those
savings and loan institutions honest.

    A. The 1980s are characterized as the decade of greed,
Greed with a capital G. Many of the savings and loans' problems
were the outgrowth of extraordinary greed and chicanery by
persons in the S&L industry. I call the S&L debacle a policy
wreck. The people involved in it were motivated by greed and
ambition, and we also had public officials, regulators, who were
inattentive to their public post. Because of that inattention,
we the taxpayers are going to have to pay that extraordinary
amount.


    Q. At the University of Texas you teach a course called
"Political Values and Ethics" at the Lyndon B. Johnson School
of Public Affairs. How do you instill a strong sense of ethics
in young people interested in public service?

    A. It is not easy. You don't teach people ethics. I try to
sensitize my students to be able to identify an ethical morass
they are about to step into before they step into it. I tell
them, don't expect to get rich -- the public does not pay its
servants a great deal of money. Go do this job because you want
the government to run well and you think you can help it run
well. And I say, if ever you decide you want to get rich, then
get out of government, because if you don't, I'll visit you in
jail. That gets their attention!


    Q. How broad is your definition of ethics?

    A. We can't talk about ethics without talking about
openness and inclusiveness. We, as the people of the United
States of America, with all our rhetoric and promises, still
have the problem of color.

    With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we really thought we
were moving to finally get this issue of race behind us. Then
we saw during the late '80s a resurfacing of racism. We saw
more in the Supreme Court decisions of 1989, and the
culmination was that veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1990. It
seemed as if a little bit of bigotry was O.K. But if ever you
tolerate a little bit, you have let the door come ajar. We saw
that in the campaign of '88, with Willie Horton as an issue, and
in the Jesse Helms race last fall. The civil rights
constituency seems to have been weakened, and that is very, very
troubling. I attribute it to the inattention the question
received during the Reagan years.

    What is needed in this country is a leader -- a President
of the U.S. -- who speaks of all citizens without equivocation.
It doesn't cost a dime; you've got the pulpit -- just get out
there and use it!


    Q. You won a national reputation for rectitude as a member
of the Nixon impeachment panel in your first term in Congress.
Yet scarcely 10 years after that national crisis, another group
in the White House was secretly subverting the law in the
Iran-contra affair.

    A. That was a surprise to me. I thought the lessons of
Watergate were lasting lessons and we wouldn't see that again.
But an atmosphere was generated around Ronald Reagan and his
presidency. Here was a President who was fairly disengaged. And
when you have that at the top, that means that those who are
underneath feel free to do whatever they want to do in
developing their own agendas and acting them out. I think we saw
that in Poindexter and North.

    The bottom line is, yes, we learned the lesson of
Watergate. It stuck for about 10 years, but then you have to
relearn it. We ought to have a continuing sort of seminar for
people who are in charge of government, because the lessons get
old and need to be revived.


    Q. You have called loyalty an attribute of morality. In
both Watergate and the Iran-contra affair, loyalty to the
President was at the heart of the wrongdoing.

    A. Loyalty is a very important trait, one of those
principles that should adhere to your core. But how far does
loyalty go? Are you loyal to the point of supporting your
superior in an illegality?

    In my opinion, that becomes misplaced loyalty, and you
ought to do something about it. If you see wrongdoing, loyalty
requires that you go to your superior, notwithstanding that it
may not be beneficial, and say that what you see being done is
wrong and should be stopped. You should try to correct it
in-house. But if you can't change it inside, then you get out
and try to change it from outside.


    Q. In the context of ethical leadership, whom, past or
present, do you admire?

    A. Bill Moyers is my hero. I'd like to see him as
President.