Danielle Dodham-Wright
Dirty hands in politics is not a clearly defined issue; it is subject to individual interpretations of what defines dirty hands and is open to debate about circumstances that call for them.
It is for this reason that Shugarman’s article does not have a clearly defined thesis: there is no universal yardstick that we can use to measure political actions against. Instead he looks at extreme versus everyday situations, politician’s versus civilian’s characters and societies acceptance of dirty hands. As an “idealistic realist” I agree with each of his arguments.
I allow that dire circumstances call for actions that would ordinarily not be necessary: “desperate times” do call for “desperate measures.” In extreme situations “dirty hands” can be employed to protect a greater cause with minimal guilt. Theoretically, pushing a person out of the way of a moving car would not make a person feel guilty because they have saved a life, regardless of the fact that pushing is generally not acceptable behavior. The words “dirty hands” should not be applied to extreme situations. When there is no other solution dirty hands become “necessary hands.”
However, in no way should dirty hands be employed in everyday situations. When dirty hands are involved in everyday politicians or groups take advantage of, cheat or manipulate to further their own ideals. An example of an extremist approach to a situation that did not call for it deals with MKULTRA. Although the United States only speculated that terrorists were dabbling in brainwashing plans a CIA run organization implemented a plan to learn more about, and thus prevent, terrorist brainwashing. Without their knowledge 77 individuals were given LSD and other experimental drugs, and many were left permanently affected. MKULTRA was unjustified in their actions because they were not necessary; the threat was only supposed and other options to learn more about brainwashing could have been made available.
An issue that arises is politicians who treat every situation as an extreme case when they do not have to be. As Shugarman maintains, there are other alternatives than an “extreme situation approach” as “hard cases make for bad law.” Situations should be looked at carefully and options should be examined; often there are alternative and more rational solutions to everyday circumstances.
Dirty politics also deal with a politician’s character, compared to that of the average persons. I agree with Shugraman when he outlines that no person should be above the law. The Justice Brandeis of the US Supreme Court said “.. government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens..” Although politicians hold great power they cannot be excused from the same basic code of conduct that the general public follows. Politics are an extension of the interactions that occur between individuals on an everyday basis. If they are allowed to follow a different code to solve problems what can individuals do to solve smaller matters? We cannot function as a society if our leaders cannot set a positive example for us. Politicians must remain human in their ethics as “the use of power without checks leads to its abuse.”
Another pressing issue in our society is that we have been desensitized to the use of dirty hands. Shugarman suggests that instead of condemning their use we have “romanticized” them. Hollywood and the media’s promotion of fast paced drama has led us to view most situations as life our death; we glamorize circumstances to fulfill our need for entertainment. For this reason we feel that politicians are justified in their actions: we can sympathize with our leaders and imagine their suffering. Although there may be other alternatives they are boring to us. Bush’s high approval rating among U.S citizens is an example of a situation where the public would rather be caught up in an exciting, if dirty, game than have their leader take a rational approach to the problem.
I wholeheartedly agree with Shugarman’s article. True dirty politics, situations where effective problem solving methods are available but not taken, are not acceptable. As a society we should promote politicians who endorse diplomacy, integrity and communications as alternatives to both everyday and difficult situations.