One
thing we know about organizations is that culture starts from the
top. It is the values, demeanor, practice, outlook, personal
characteristics, and worldview of leadership that comes to
characterize an organization. And not only an organization: an
industry, a country, a world.
As a
doctor, I'm very conscious of the culture of medicine. We have to
maintain the worldview of medicine, that yes, we get something out of
it personally, often a lot, but that we are there to serve people,
and that the patient comes first. And that everyone deserves respect
and service regardless of position in society. That's what the
profession of medicine means to me. We serve patients, and we don't
cheat and steal from them, and we try our hardest. That's one reason
that I've been reluctant to see there be a strict limit set on
resident hours of service. I hated being on call and up all night.
But I learned. I learned what it was to serve. I came to take pride
in having survived, and having done well, and having had a hell of a
night my final night on call and gave report at 10 AM after not
having slept and having done one hell of a good job with my patients,
and being able to give a full and very competent signout. I wasn't
the greatest doctor, in my own opinion, but I came through fine. It
worked.
There
are other professions with other ethics, all somewhat different. One
of the most important is the ethic of public service. Listen to the
Kennedy's talk about “public service.” There's something holy
about it when they say it. It's always italicized for them, for
emphasis, for respect for the holy. “Public Service.” When you
go into public service, you are in it to, well, serve the public.
You are supposed to make a financial sacrifice; you aren't supposed
to fill your own coffers – leave that for the Panamanian outlaw
public servants, as my son Allie, married to a Panamanian, keeps
pointing out with outrage. What a violation! The French seem to
have some idea of the inevitability of corruption – the president
is immune while serving, but after Chirac left office, off he went to
the tribunal. Even now, Fallon is out of the race because of
sinecures he assigned his wife. So, I guess it isn't just “accepted”
after all. Public service is public service, not private looting.
Unless
you're Putin, of course. The Commies came in and took power, and
pretty soon they had all the luxury dachas. It wasn't in their names
personally, but it didn't make a difference, they had it, it was
theirs. Now that it's all privatized, boy is it privatized, it's in
their names. Even “good guy” Medvedev has mansion after mansion.
Kleptocracy doesn't have a good name in the West, but in Russia it
seems to be different. Of course, not to paint with too broad a
brush, that's because the thugs have won and the opposition is
suppressed. But it would be a long row to hoe to change that
long-established political culture.
And in
China, I understand that Xi's anticorruption drive is really just a
way to solidify his control and get Hu's and Bo's people out of the
way. The private wealth amassed by Party officials is more than
substantial. The princelings control, the princelings have lots of
money, and Vancouver is close to a Chinese abroad province. So in
Russia and China, we have major counter-examples to our ethic of
public service.
I
wrote a review some time ago of the book by Sarah Chayes, “Thieves
of State.” In it, Chayes sets out her conviction that to build
nations one has to make lack of corruption a first priority. To
quote myself:
“Chayes'
thesis is that failed states are not really failed states, they are
countries captured and run by criminal associations. Their modus
operandi is the
shakedown at all levels. Therefore, the strategy of the United States
– first to establish stability and only afterwards to root out
corruption – does not and cannot work. Oppression is not a good
strategy for the long term.”
I
think you probably see where I'm going with this now. Donald Trump
seems to me to be a would-be gangster – he'd like to be one, he
acts as though he is one, he's not, but he tries to steal like one.
Not exactly steal, but to practice self-emolument. He, and everyone
around him, are bringing a perverted modern business ethic to the
government – do it if it's legal or close to legal, and if it's not
legal, make it legal – and the effect could be like an infection in
the body politic. I've made this point in a couple of my last posts,
I know, but now I'm taking it further.
The
problem is, nations act according to laws, yes, but those laws are
really just the shadows of norms and customs. You can't legislate
and you can't enforce everything people do. In some countries
everybody cheats on their taxes. I heard that one year someone in
France decided not to cheat on his taxes and he wound up on a list of
the 10 richest persons in France. Part of Greece's problem is that
no one pays his or her taxes – they just don't. And if everyone
acts that way, you can't enforce it, you don't have the manpower, and
you don't have the consensus of the country behind you. If the law
of the state is somehow widely regarded as illegitimate in an area,
it won't work. Yes, remarkably, our tax system works pretty well,
but even though we do have an enforcement mechanism where everyone
wants to avoid an audit, to some extent we are on the collective
honor system.
To
get back to where I started, organizations and industries and
countries get their cues from their leaders. When you lead an
organization, that's what you find out quickly, or your organization
fails. You can get a bad leader who doesn't measure up to the
traditional standards, and then getting rid of them clears the
infection, if the new leader reapplies the old ethic. I think that's
what we have to hope for with Trump. If it stays too long and
becomes too pervasive, people start to think: why am I paying my
taxes relatively honestly? Am I the only chump in the country?
Resentment sets in, and becomes widespread, and then it becomes hard
to root out.
And
another thing: it's not good for business. Is this what the ethic of
business is, Carl Icahn using government to cut himself a special EPA
deal to net him millions? The Trump brand netting the Trump family
millions while
in office?
It didn't used to be this way. In World War II, FDR recruited the
best of business to employ the Dollar A Year men, the business
leaders who left their companies to mobilize the country to be the
Arsenal of Democracy, under the leadership of Bill Knudson. The good
businessmen, not the enemies of the public good whose hate FDR
welcomed. That, Donald, is what the ethic of public service is all
about. They are not starry-eyed do-gooders. They are patriots.
And
while I'm at it, that's part of what sank Hillary. Even if you have
left public service, if you intend to go back, you don't bank tens of
millions. You just don't. Sunk her, imho.
I'm
less worried about fascism than I'm worried about a decay in the
ethic of public service. They're too incompetent, and the country is
too sophisticated to accept fascism. I don't think the country will
even accept Right Wing Republicanism for long. But a decay in the
ethic of public service, leading to cheating up and down the line, in
addition to the perceived failure of what Obama talked about, working
hard and playing by the rules and then not getting your just reward –
that's what is at stake.
The
violation of public trust of the Trump Administration will need to be
stopped. It's usually up to Congress to do it, but the Right Wing
Republicans are too compromised to do it. We'll probably have to
wait for the next election. Meanwhile, it will have to be up to the
courts and private groups bringing actions. And meanwhile, back in
the states, that's where the positive action needs to grow and grow,
associations of states who uphold the public trust, who believe in
the action of people bound together by an ethic of public trust and
public service and concern for others and not just themselves and
their immediate friends.
And
then, there is the ethic of business. Trump and friends do not
represent the business ethic, or what the business ethic should be.
To rescue their profession, businesspeople all over should be rising
up and saying, “This does not represent us; posturing, blowing
smoke, being incompetent, and stealing is not what our ethic calls
for, and it's not what we do.” They have a profession to protect.
They might not have a natural leadership structure to enable this
statement to be made easily, but informal organizing could overcome
that. They need to protect themselves from the scourge.
And
you know what? I'm confident that this will occur for the country.
I'm not so sure about the business community, but I'm pretty sure
about the country. This isn't me exercising the moral imperative of
optimism. I really believe it. I believe that the scum will be
contained.
Color
me optimistic, for real.
Budd
Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment