|
Since launching Ethics Megatrends in 2021, I have used my New Year’s newsletter to reflect on one or more very long-term developments that are changing the moral life and character of our nation and its people. While there are many ethical trends that fit that reality this year, I believe one stands out and will have the greatest lasting impact on our moral character. To what extent will individual Americans, particularly public figures in government, resist or capitulate when pressured to go along with something they believe is illegal, which violates some longstanding practice of good governance or simply puts them on the side of untruth and injustice? The response to temptation or to threats has long been a core concern of moral deliberation. In my own Christian tradition, the synoptic gospels relate the story of the devil’s temptation of Jesus. Shortly after he is baptized, he is offered all worldly power if he will bow down to the devil. Jesus, instead, tells the devil to “be gone.” Modern American political history demonstrates a continuing concern with the temptation to power. In John F. Kennedy’s 1956 book Profiles in Courage, the future president hailed politicians who put truth and justice ahead of their political career. Too often, his examples, and those who have later been honored with Profiles in Courage awards from the John F. Kennedy Library, have seen their political careers ended in the wake of their principled stands. That Trump’s presidencies would test the moral character of so many was apparent from his first day in office in 2017. He demanded that Sean Spicer, his press secretary, baldly assert that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama’s, when it was obviously much smaller. Trump’s demand that his appointees parrot his lies has continued into his second term, demonstrated daily by his current press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, but echoed by the behavior of his Cabinet and other appointees who understand it is the price of retaining their positions. To me, the most egregious example of a lack of moral courage in the Trump cabinet has been Attorney General Pam Biondi, who appears ready to indict anyone Trump directs and to make the Justice Department into a vehicle for Trump’s retaliation against anyone he considers an enemy. Members of Congress have also gotten the word. Those who disagree with the President on any issue or action have been noticeably silent, even failing to defend principles they have long held so they retain their positions. And too many law firm, foundation, corporate, and university leaders have demonstrated that they are willing to compromise their principles and those of their organizations to remain on the ‘good’ side of the Trump administration. But not everyone capitulates in the face of injustice and threats. Even before Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, we saw notable examples of men and women who stood up for their principles and called out the actions of January 6, 2021, as a threat to the nation. Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who served on the January 6 Commission, was the most prominent, but other Republicans also dissented and supported Trump’s second impeachment. Unfortunately, many of these were forced from office or chose not to run again. A bipartisan “gang of eight” crafted a balanced immigration bill in 2023, only to be undercut by Trump, who said he didn’t actually want a solution; he just wanted to have the issue of immigration continue in order to bash the Democrats in the 2024 election. There are undoubtedly hundreds, and even thousands, who have refused jobs in the administration because they are unwilling to compromise their values in this way. A large number of officials in government have resigned rather than carry out unjust policies. In Congress, a few Republican congressmen and women have been willing to oppose policies or vote against the President on matters of principle. In the private sector, leaders in law firms, companies, and universities have also had their ethical values tested by the Trump administration's attempts to compromise the independence of their institutions. While some have capitulated, others have resisted to strengthen the integrity of the sector they represent. In the past month, we have seen additional individuals follow their consciences and resist Trump initiatives. Republican state legislators in Indiana refused to redistrict mid-decade, as Trump demanded. A smattering of Republican legislators have publicly expressed serious doubts about Trump's legislative priorities, though some finally capitulated when faced with Trump’s threats. Artists scheduled to perform at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts have cancelled their participation to protest the violation of long-standing practices at the Center, as well as Trump’s rebranding of the institution to honor himself. What separates those who are willing to compromise their principles from those who stand courageously against unjust policies? What explains why some give in to temptation and others resist? Recent studies in ‘behavioral ethics’ have expanded our understanding of why temptation often wins. Obviously the rewards and threats associated with ethical choices play a major role, but more subtle notions of moral blindness, self-serving bias, disengagement (this is not my battle), compartmentalization (I would never do this at home, but it is okay in politics), and the “slippery slope” help explain a willingness to “go along” with injustice. For politicians and appointees, the ability to resist temptation begins with how they regard their career in government—what is their ultimate purpose in serving? Is it a chance to serve the public good, or is it a chance simply to amass power, wealth, and influence for oneself? I co-taught a Washington workshop for corporate executives during the 1980s with Ron Nessen, Gerald Ford’s former press secretary. While Nessen insisted most members of Congress were motivated solely to get re-elected and retain their power, we hosted selected members who demonstrated an extraordinary ability to think deeply about the challenge of maintaining one’s values in government. It is appropriate that we are seeing an active debate today over the wisest and most ethical responses to arbitrary and unethical actions by government. That debate is more broadly reflected in an active discussion among younger Americans about what one hopes to achieve in their career and how important their personal character and integrity are to their lives. I predict these questions of complicity and expediency versus integrity will be central to the moral dialogue among Americans in the next 10 to 15 years. I believe that in the post-Trump world, the shock of seeing so many willing to compromise truth and their own principles will provoke disgust as well as the cynicism that may be dominant today. We will reflect at length on the purpose of life, on the role our careers play in that life, and on how to manage our own ability to demonstrate courage rather than complicity when faced with ethical choices. It will drive us to use the insights of behavioral ethics and character formation to increase our ability to see moral choices more clearly and to strengthen our ability to act with integrity when faced with them. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., I believe the arc of moral development and moral courage may be long, but it bends towards integrity and justice. We just have to make it so.
|
