Ethics. How do we define ethics? I believe that everyone (and this is a superlative that I believe holds true) with the exception of sociopaths, agrees with the definition from Webster's Dictionary, below:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic
Definition of ethic
- 1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
- 2b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>
I see a few possibilities and they may be occurring at the same time. Maybe in concert with each other or maybe just coincidentally. First, members of Congress (currently 'owned' by republicans) are not known for behaving well at all times. That's understandable, we're all humans and as such we all make mistakes. Some make bigger more egregious mistakes than others. If you think of a mistake as something that occurs without consciously knowing it is 'wrong', then maybe what I'm describing aren't mistakes, but rather morally wrong choices.
Let's face it, Republicans want less regulation. I guess that means that they, themselves, do not want to be regulated. I guess that means that those that voted to stop this oversight believe that only God can determine if a person has done something unethical and that a non-partisan panel of humans shouldn't sit in 'judgement' of Congress, not even monitor the members.
So why did they reverse themselves so quickly? Of course I don't know, but let's throw some stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
A.) Did the members of the rules committee that voted to remove the ethics panel have a flash of morality, a flash of ethical thinking and behavior. Naaaaaaaaa, I don't think so!
B.) Did they receive a a lot of immediate flack from constituents and the news media. I don't know about constituents, but news outlets certainly jumped on it immediately. Did that affect a 'change of heart'? Maybe (shrugging my shoulders). The ironic thing is, I'm going to appear a little cynical by suggesting that many members of Congress (if not all) are way too cynical to be effected in this way
.C.) Was it trump's tweet? Let's look at it:
“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it ... may be, their number one act and priority, Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!”
“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it ... may be, their number one act and priority, Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!”
Again, I strongly doubt it. In my humble opinion, this is simply another attempt to have us look at one hand while the other hand is doing something else. This guy is about as ethical as adolf hitler. He is, again in my opinion, a sociopath. he has no idea what the difference is between right and wrong, therefore has no clue what ethics are. What I believe (and again will be blamed for being cynical) is that trump wanted to show us that he is an ethical person, especially prior to his much ballyhooed upcoming press conference on 1/11 that will certainly be concerned with his obvious conflicts of interest. We all know better.
D.) What about a conspiracy theory. Is something going on between trump and Congress? Did the members of the Rules Committee take a hit for trump, so he could look good when he tweeted? After all, they know that our attention span is short, that we'll forget this waffle act quickly. To a certain degree, my gut says yes, but now I'm sounding paranoid.
I vote for B.) and D.) occurring in conjunction with each other (and my vote does count). In fact all of our votes count because perception equals reality. We're never going to 'know' for sure, so we are left with what we believe.
But.......ethics, who needs 'em anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment