Catherine McGoveran
Wednesday, September 27, 2005
Are “Dirty Hands” Necessary in Politics?
Summary
Introduction
1. Political life includes elected officials who are either:
o Deceptive and corrupt, feeling of guild and remorse for actions
o Morally suspect officials, no feeling of guilt or remorse for actions
2. “Dirty-hands politics” – people acting badly for the purpose of achieving a greater good
3. Elected officials face dilemma: whether to take an action that might benefit many but would constitute an improper or even immoral act
4. Political life is rife with dirty-hand situations
5. Some countries, dirty hands are not an issue (due to weakness of moral and legal codes)
6. Democracies are based on rule of law and observant of accepted moral practices
7. Some people believe dirty-hands politics is needed in democracies because:
o Public life would suffer
o Security of a country could be put at risk
o At the extreme it is thought the moral politician (refuses to use dirty-hands) is dangerous
8. Others have trouble with dirty hands in politics
o What is dangerous is the acceptance of politics that so clearly contradicts democratic practice
o We would be counting on all-knowing leaders to decide whether to observe laws and moral precepts
9. All of this amounts to a kind of “moral Machiavellianism,” in which any action is fine so long as it results in a beneficial outcome, and undertaker posses a guilty conscience
√ Yes: Michael Walzer
§ There is no dilemma when faced with a moral dilemma
§ In modern times the dilemma appears most often as “dirty hands”
§ Communist leader Hoerderer in Sartre’s play states: “I have dirty hands right up to the elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern innocently?”
o Walzer feels that he could not govern innocently and those who govern us are not innocent either
§ The dilemma of dirty hands is a central feature of political life
§ The politician hustles, lies and intrigues for us, as well as himself
o Hustling and lying are necessary because power and glory are so desirable
o The benefits of ruling are greater than those of being ruled
§ However good and moral people enter politics, but they must learn “how not to be good”
§ Politicians are where they are today because not only because they are good, but they have also learned how to not be good
§ Walzer states that no one succeeds in politics without getting his hands dirty
Example 1:
§ A moral leader wants to win the election without getting his hands dirty
§ He is offered the granting of contracts for school construction over four years, by a dishonest ward boss
§ He has many contemplating thoughts
o Reluctant to even consider the deal
o Refuses to calculate the possible effects the deal may have for him
o He knows supporters support him because they believe him to be a good man
o If he makes the deal he may not be able to make ends meet later on
o However he finds the offer almost tempting
§ Because he has these thoughts we know he is a good man
§ We know he is doing right when he makes the deal because he knows he is doing wrong
§ If he is a good man , he will feel guilty – this is what it means to have dirty hands
Example 2
§ A politician has won office, and comes to power during a war with a colony
§ He wins the election because he promised peace and decolonization
§ He arrives at the colony only to find terrorists have placed bombs in apartment buildings around the city
§ They have captured a terrorist leader and is thought to know where the bombs may be, but won’t talk
§ The politician, when asks if torture of the prisoner is ok, he gives the go ahead although he believes torture is wrong
§ His willingness to acknowledge and show his guilt is proof that he is not too good for politics but that he is good enough
§ He accepted the moral burden of committing a moral crime
§ Walzer states that if he were a moral man his hands would not be dirty; if he were a politician and nothing else, he would pretend that they were clean
§ In conclusion Walzer states that because we claim to act for others but also serve ourselves, rule over others, and use violence against them, it is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics and it is often right to do so
X No: David P. Shugarman
Dirty Hands of Basic Humanity
§ The theoretical defence of dirty hands seems to be that it is the best way of combining morality with power.
§ Shugarman states that Walzer’s examples are to demonstrate the nature of the moral problems faced by decent politicians and to convince us that choosing to be devious and cruel is sometimes the best option
§ Shugarman’s view on Walzer’s examples is that they useful to show us serious weaknesses in the dirty hands position, especially when repercussions are considered
§ Shugarman believes Walzer’s second example to be incredible and a bad example because:
o Difficult to believe a terrorism would occur the day a new leader is elected
o The leader might have considered alternative options (e.g. evacuation)
o Walzer treats the example as in extremis
o It is difficult to determine whether the example is a real example of dirty hands politics
o There seems to be more important problems than the decision that a leader had to make
§ There is no reason for someone to feel guilty about intervening
§ In extreme situations, you wouldn’t be wrong to do what you wouldn’t normally do, and there would be no reason for you to feel guilty or be punished
§ People should move away from deontology and recognize extreme situations
§ Recourse to dirty hands is an extreme exception to democratic politics rather than a staple of it and resort to such tactics is the result of a failure of politics as well as a turn to war
§ It is misleading to see the world as a place where most people are expected to be, and expect others to be, pure deontologists except for “gifted” politicians who are expected to know they cannot be
Fair Elections?
§ Shugarman also has problems with Walzer’s first example because:
o If it gets around that this is what it takes to win elections, it will be hard to expect others not to do the same thing
§ Justice Brandeis of the US Supreme Court stated that:
o “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.”
§ Shugarman stresses that during an elections campaign, people have enough trouble getting important issues clarified without being expected to know a candidate’s inner motives and deeply held moral convictions
§ The notion that in able to win an election, it must first be rigged calls for a remarkable schizoid moral sensibility on the part of both leaders and led
§ Shugarman raises an import question:
o Why would a successful political feel or admit guilt at having done something that paid off in victory and that was done with the assumed consent of his supporters?
o How would a successful politician be punished? By not electing him again?
§ The proposition that it is democratic for a democracy to deprive itself of a privilege or disenfranchise itself is logically and practically incoherent
Defensible and Indefensible Dirty Hands
§ Doing something wrong in order to do something right, doesn’t not make sense
§ If the politician or leader had to resort to torture or killing, “we” would have thought it was justifiable and we would not expect him to be punished for it
o This example is acceptable
§ MKILTRA used patients in a program to investigate mind-control techniques
o The patients were given hallucinogen and other experimental drugs without their permission or knowledge
o Resulted in patients with disturbed psyches, and lives ruined
o This example is not acceptable
§ Another example of unacceptable dirty hands is during the presidency of Richard Nixon
o Nixon secretly approved 3600+ B-52 air attacks against suspected Viet Cong and North Vietnamese installations in Cambodia (a nation that the Americans were not at war with)
Overall
§ All the examples above provide powerful evidence for rejecting the arguments of moral Machiavellism
§ The Dirty-hands position is terribly misleading, it seeks to portray a truth about the close relationship between leadership, morality, and democracy
§ We should not allow exceptional situations or cases determine how we should operate and understand democracy
§ Do deal with rare circumstances, we may have to make an exception, however it is a mistake to make the exception the rule
§ Shugarman states near the end that we should ask questions such as:
o Does the recommended deviation prevent or reduce harm?
o Does the option contribute to achieving benefit?
o Is it the right decision because of fairness?
o Does it contribute to trustworthiness and so serve the cause of veracity?
Postscript
§ Good men and women will be put into positions that require them to take action
§ Sometimes quick action is called for, and sometimes the democratic citizenry may want its leaders to get their hands dirty
Glossary Terms
Rife: In widespread existence, practice or use; increasingly prevalent.
Utilitarianism: A theory that states that the greatest good for the greatest number of people should be the main consideration when making a choice of actions; a belief that if “the ends justify the means,” then a decision is moral.
Precariousness: Dangerously lacking in security or stability.
Electorate: A body of qualified voters.
Sardonic: Scornfully or cynically mocking.
Ostensible: Represented or appearing as such; ostensive.
Disparagement: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
Scruples: An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.
Blasé: Uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence.
Realpolitik: A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.
In extremis: At the point of death.
Archetypal: An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype.
Renege: To fail to carry out a promise or commitment.
Deontology: Ethical theory concerned with duties and rights.
Schizoid: Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder marked by extreme shyness, flat affect, reclusiveness, discomfort with others, and an inability to form close relationships.
MKULTRA: A program of mind-control experimentation funded and organized by the American CIA
CIA: Central Intelligence Agency
Penance: An act of self-mortification or devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin or other wrongdoing.
Adversity: A state of hardship or affliction; misfortune.
Disseminated: To scatter widely, as in sowing seed.
Veracity: Adherence to the truth; truthfulness.
Discussion Questions
1. What is your position on the dirty hands dilemma? Explain.
2. Explain how MKULTRA is an example of unacceptable dirty hands.
3. Do you believe that without dirty hands, a politician will not be able to succeed?
4. Are there examples affecting us today that have to do with dirty hands?
5. Would you vote for a leader that exercised dirty hands in not only in extremis situations? Why or why not?
6. Do you feel its right for politicians to get their hands dirty when they are the ones setting examples and enforcing the rules that they themselves are breaking?
7. Do you think that guilt is enough to cleanse a politician of his dirty hands?
8. For example say that you are put in a situation where you are working on an unethical project, and staying with the project or abandoning it will not make things better or worse. Would you feel that you must act on morals and leave without dirty hands?
9. How far should dirty hands go, when does it cross the line, or how much is too much? Who decides, and what would be done?
My Answers
1. My position on the dirty hands dilemma is that unless it is necessary and only in extreme cases, should dirty hands be used. I think that the whole point of electing a leader is because you know their hands are clean, you know they will make good moral decisions for the common good of everyone, to the best of their ability. Although there are some instances when dirty hands may be ok, but in most cases it should only be used as a last resort.
2. MKULTRA is an example of dirty hands that is unacceptable because it was not a necessary action, and many peoples lives were ruined without notice. They were unaware of the drugs they were being given and the possible effects that it could have. This kind of dirty hands is unacceptable simply because it was not necessary. It is one thing to ask peoples permission to be brainwashed, yet another to do it without informing the patients. This decision was destructive and misguided.
3. I do believe that without dirty hands a politician would be able to succeed. I think that it is also important to recognize those who can achieve this seemingly impossible task. It may seem difficult, but if a politician used dirty hands only when it came to an absolutely necessary situation, he may still be able to succeed. However this may not be true in all cases, because there seems to be a growing number of dirty handed politicians in today’s society.
4. An example that is affecting us today that has to do with dirty hands may be on the war in Iraq. To us it seemed and still does seem clearly unnecessary for the war, the solution of war should be a last resort and production of it requires dirty hands. Other options should be looked over until it is absolutely crucial that further action be taken.
5. I probably wouldn’t vote for a leader who used dirty hands as an answer to frequent problems. In most cases I think that I would only vote for a leader who used dirty hand in in extremis situations, because then I would be able to trust them with handling matters that may concern me and my community. I would be assured that the leader wouldn’t be simply serving his own needs, but also those of the citizens they are ruling.
6. I don’t think that it is right or appropriate for politicians to be able to get away with dirty hands, especially because of the fact that they are making the decisions that we have to live by. In addition the example they are setting, for example if they are breaking the law to do “good”, may only promote others to break the law as well.
7. In most cases I don’t think that guilt itself is enough to cleanse dirty hands. If dirty hands are practiced in the first place, there should be a good and valid reason for doing so. If there is not, then we know that we may have elected the wrong leader. However if the leader got their hands dirty because it was the last resort, then as Shugarman stated, they should not be punished for their actions.
8. If I was working on a project that went against my morals, I’m uncertain whether I would leave. In most cases I probably would because it is very hard for people to support something they truly don’t believe in. However if the stakes were high enough I may be able to stay, but in light of this, I would probably not be able to put 100% into the project.
9. As I have stated several times, dirty hands should not go very far. Leader’s hands should only get dirty when they are at their last resort, and they have no other option. However, how would we really determine if the leader had gone over all other options? In this case it is very had to determine what the leader’s reason for their course of action is, and whether they chose the right one. They only people who could decide this would have to be the public. For example if a majority of the public felt the same way about a leader’s decision, it is more likely that they will do something about it. However what they do about the situation would be difficult to determine. They could start petitions for example, and find various ways to raise awareness and increase the majority. By doing this they may be able to get the leader’s attention and have an influence on their decision, if it is not already too late.
Are “Dirty Hands” Necessary in Politics?
Reflection
Dirty hands in politics has been a raging controversial question for years, and it will remain so for years to come. There are numerous interpretations of dirty hands leaving it up for discussion and analysis. As stated several times in the class discussion, there is no real way to prevent or create guidelines for the use of dirty hands in politics. Who will decide whether the politician has gone too far, and what could be done?
Walzer’s argument is shown trough very extreme situations. Throughout his essay he states that it is impossible for someone, or anyone, to govern without getting their hands dirty. He makes references to Machiavelli and stresses the fact that politicians must learn “how not to be good”. In his first example of the moral leader wanting to win the election he states that, “if he is a good man, he will feel guilty – this is what it means to have dirty hands”. In his second example, of a politician giving the ‘ok’ for torture of a terrorist, he provides more insight to his position. He claims that, “his willingness to acknowledge and show his guilt is proof that he is not too good for politics but that he is good enough”. However, are these examples good evidence, or are they just rare exceptions in an attempt to provide an excuse for the actions of those who rule us.
Shugarman’s side of the controversy provides a much stronger approach, in my opinion, as well as a rebuttal to Walzer’s opinions. His position on the topic become clear, that to deal with rare circumstances, we may have to make an exception, however it is a mistake to make the exception the rule. To back up this argument, he gives clear and relevant examples of situations where extreme measures may need to be taken. His most important argument is that of the incident of MKULTRA, where patients were given hallucinogen and other experimental drugs without their permission or knowledge. This was a clear example of how dirty hands can be unacceptable. In my opinion Shugarman’s argument is much stronger, and his intentions are clear. He believes that although men and women will be but in situations that may require extreme action, dirty hands should only be exercised when there is no other resolution possible.
Throughout the class discussion views on both sides of the arguments above were expressed. There were many the people who felt that dirty hands have no place in democracy. These people stated that other means need to be explored before resorting to things such as war (the war in Iraq was an example). In addition there were several people who felt that a leader could not rule effectively if their hands never got dirty. The class also went into great discussion about how there seems to be an overuse of dirty hands, but on the other hand what can be done about this problem. We attempted to brainstorm possibilities such as a greater distribution of power to try and minimalize dirty hands. Another key contributor to the understanding of the concept of dirty hands was the examples that classmates provided. There were numerous examples including the sponsorship scandal, the war in Iraq, female presidency, corrupted presidency, the use of morals in modern society and many more. I think that the most effective part of the discussion was the part about morals in relation to downloading, stealing, pornography, abortions, and more. It was interesting to see different peoples’ views on how morals come into play in these subjects.
These key examples allowed the class to debate and gain a real understanding that there really is no answer to whether dirty hands is necessary in politics. We were also able to see that there is no real way to draw a line of how far dirty hands should go, and that it is extremely difficult to punish such acts. In my opinion I believe that Shugarman provided the stronger argument and that dirty hands should only be implemented as a last resort, but in some cases it may be necessary. There is no real way to prevent dirty hands but we must accept its presence. It is clear that dirty hands are all around us, and to deny such facts is to, in a way, deny the political systems of today’s world.