Wrangling over ethics

What should come of Charles Rangel?

Charles Rangel, senior Member of the House of Representatives from New York and chair of the Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax laws), has agreed to relinquish his committee gavel after a months-long imbroglio involving allegations of privately-funded jaunts and failure to report income derived from real estate holdings.

What may seem less odd to congressional pundits and more odd to an ethicist is why so many are calling for him to give up his chairmanship as opposed to resigning from Congress altogether.  Is there a method to the madness, or is everything political posturing?

The political calculation isn’t hard to divine.  Rangel is an extremely senior legislator who chairs a powerful committee.  All things equal, it would be in the interest of the Democratic Caucus to keep Rangel in power until an ethics panel releases its findings.

But in an uncertain political climate for incumbent candidates, Rangel provides an irresistable target for Republicans and fellow Democrats alike.  If even a few of the allegations are true, it’s difficult not to point to Rangel as a symptom of what’s wrong with Washington.  Members of Congress cannot use their influence to derive personal benefit.  Such an act is a corruption of power.  It also raises the concern that their legislative voice can be bought off with the correct inducements.

That’s why its confusing to imagine what stripping Rangel of his chairmanship really signifies.  In congressional terms, its a serious rebuke of a senior legislator and party leader.  In moral terms, it feels less meaningful.

One view would say that proportional justice (you get what you deserve) should govern these cases.  Rangel committed a no-no, and he gets a corresponding slap on the wrist.  Another view would say that these rules – as regard legislators, who are held to the most scrupulous standard – are “threshold” in nature.  You either follow the rules or you don’t; and if you don’t, then you’re out.

Many institutions embrace a hybrid.  Baseball players can do a lot of bad things to earn a suspension.  But when Pete Rose gambled on baseball, he was banned for life.

There’s a lot of righteous talk about what Rangel really deserves.  There’s a lot less reasoned discussion.

-Sam

Related posts:

  1. When ethics attack
  2. Professional ethics
  3. Ethics 101
  4. Abusing state power
  5. Cow ethics ctd.

March 3, 2010 · Filed Under Politics, Punishment, Sam

Share

Comments

Leave a Reply




  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU, a former Fulbright Scholar to Mauritius, and a graduate of Cornell University. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in Washington and a graduate of the University of Chicago. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow with the U.S. government and a graduate of Princeton University. He earned an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • John Rood is the founder of Next Step Test Preparation and a graduate of Michigan State University. He has an AM in Political Theory from the University of Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is a student at Carleton College, pursuing a double major in Philosophy and Political Science.


  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind



  •

  • Share us