Summary: “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”  By Michael Walzer

 

N     Dirty-hands politics is particularly predominant in democracies.

C     Democracies are supposedly based on the rule of law and morals.

C     In non-democratic countries, moral and legal codes are more relaxed.

N     Machiavelli: “The ends justify the means” – People act badly for good reasons.

C     This is “dirty-hands politics.”

C     People elected into positions of power often have to choose between “whether to take an action that might benefit many but would constitute an improper or even immoral act.”

N     Belief that democracies have to accept dirty-hands politicians.

C     Moral politicians (those who do not practise dirty-hands politics) are dangerous.

N     Dirty-hands politics is a “moral Machiavellianism”

N     It is difficult/impossible for a politician to live a perfectly moral life.

C     This is the same for most people.

N     An action might be right in utilitarian terms, but the person who does it will have a guilty conscience.

C     After making a dirty-hands decision, innocent man is not innocent any more

C     If he stays innocent, he did not do the right thing (in utilitarian terms) and might fail to measure up to the duties of his office.

N     Most often, politicians choose the utilitarian option!

N     Dirty-hands politics comes from an effort to refuse “absolutism” without denying the reality of the moral dilemma.

C     Basically, politicians refuse to be “absolutist” but will acknowledge the moral problems.

N     Business is know to be dirty, so why is politics different?

C     Politicians act on our behalf!  (Not just for themselves.).

C     Politicians say that their dishonest actions are for us.

C     We know that politicians act for themselves too! (They can’t serve us without serving themselves.)

N     It is necessary for the people who act on our behalf to sometimes act dishonestly.

C     Because power and glory are widely desired.

C     The politician has to win by any means necessary.

N     There are times when it is necessary for a politician to direct the affairs of other people and to put them in danger.

N     Politicians seem to have a confidence in their own judgments. (This makes them seem strong and often intimidating.)

N     The victorious politician uses violence and the threat of violence against us and other nations.

C     For our greater good.

N     Many good and decent people enter politics aiming at some specific reform or seeking a general reformation.

C     They enter with “good intentions.”

N     Machiavelli: “how not to be good”

C     New politicians forced to learn this when they enter the world of politics.

C     They will not succeed unless they learn.

<       They entered the power and glory competition (struggle).

C     They can do no good if they are unable to win the struggle.

<       Unlikely to win the struggle if they are not willing to by any means necessary.

<       To win the struggle, dirty hands are often required.

N     Three reasons why dirty hands are so predominant in politics:

  1. Politicians claim to act for others, but also serve themselves.
  2. Politicians rule over others.
  3. Politicians use violence over others.

N     Dirty hands politics recognizes that good people will be put into positions where they have to take difficult action.

N     In a perfect world, politicians would be moral and obey laws.

C     Politics is not a perfect world!

N     It is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics and is often right to do so!

N     No one succeeds in politics with out getting his hands dirty!

N     It is necessary to do good, but to do good it might be necessary to do bad.

 

Real-life Examples of Dirty-Hands Politics:

 

N     MKULTRA (1950’s-1960’s):  The CIA performed mind control experiments.  They were breaking laws of the United States, but kept testing new drugs on patients.  They were trying to discover new mind control weapons.

 

N     Watergate (early 1970’s): “I am not a crook.” – Richard Nixon.  Nixon was accused of stealing records and tapping phones.  He denied the charges, but resigned before being impeached.

 

N     Iran-Contra Affair (1985-1986):  During Reagan administration, arms were sold illegally to Iran.  Profits from sales went to Nicaraguan “contra” guerillas (a member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids) to get arms to fight against the “left-wing government.  Reagan was blamed, but not charged.

 

N     Shawinigan (1990’s):  Until Chrètien was elected as Prime Minister, he owned a lot of shares in a golf course called “Auberge Grand-Mère,” bought in 1988.  In 1993 he became Prime Minister and claimed that he sold his shares.  In 1996 and 1997 he helps to secure loans for the Auberge, for expansion (including money from the Human Resources Department of Canada).  1999, it is revealed that Chrètien never sold his shares.  Was he helping to benefit himself or the community?

 

N     Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (1998):  “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”  Bill Clinton has an affair with a White House intern.  Denies all charges, at first, and then accused of lying and asking people to lie for him.  Finishes out term, and does not run for re-election.

Two Examples of when dirty hands are necessary (according to Walzen):

 

  1. A politician is entering politics. 

C     Wants to win the election with clean hands. (Do good only by doing good.)

C     He is moral.  He has principles and sticks to them.

<       That is why he gets our support.

C     When he refuses to get his hands dirty, he could be staying the man he is.

<       That should be the kind of person we want representing us.

C     What if, to win the election, the candidate was forced to make a deal with a dishonest “ward boss”?

C     Should he make the deal? He should not be shocked by the offer.

C     He should make the decision based on what is best for the election.

C     Candidate is reluctant to even consider the deal.

<       Why?  His supporters support him because he would never make those kinds of deals.  He also might question his own motives for considering the deal.

C     His decision to run was a commitment to try to win, to do whatever is necessary to win.

C     Without taking the deal, he might not win.  He would be unable to achieve the things that the campaign promised.

<       If he took the deal, would he corrupt everything and everyone around him?

C     Because he is reluctant to take the deal, we know he is a good person. (He has scruples.)

C     We know he is doing right when he takes the deal because he knows that he doing wrong.

 

  1. A politician has come into a power during a time of national crisis.

C     He wants to starts negotiations to end the civil war.

C     He is asked to authorize the torture of a rebel leader who knows where a number of bombs have been hidden around the city.

C     Politician orders the man tortured even though he knows it is wrong.

C     But the politician believes he has to do so for the sake of the people.

C     During his campaign, he talked about his feelings with regards to torture.

<       He knows it is wrong.

C     Politician expressed this belief during his campaign.

<       Voters took it as a good sign, that he is moral!

<       What should voters think now?

C     When he ordered the prisoner tortured, he committed a moral crime.

<       Has accepted the moral burden.

C     Because he shows his guilt, he shows that he is not too good for politics and that he is good enough.

C     If he were a moral man and nothing else, his hands would not be dirty; if he were a politician and nothing else, he would pretend that they were clean.

C     He is a moral politician.

 

 

Glossary:

 

N     Abominable:  Very hateful, loathsome, detestable, extremely disagreeable or bad.

 

N     Absolutism:  In government, the doctrine or practice of unlimited authority and control.

 

N     Corrupt:  Open to bribery, wicked, dishonest, tainted, unclean

C     To destroy morally, to ruin, to spoil, to contaminate, to taint

 

N     Dirty-hands Politics:  People acting badly for the purpose of achieving a greater good.

 

N     Disparagement:  Something that belittles or discredits, the act of belittling or slighting, lowering or loss of esteem.

 

N     Incriminate:  To imply the wrongdoing or guilt of.

 

N     Just:  Fair, impartial, honest, morally right.

 

N     Moral Machiavellianism:  A belief that any action is fine so long as it results in a beneficial outcome and so long as the individual undertaking the action possesses a guilty conscience.

 

N     Moral:  Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong, concerned with the goodness and badness of an action/character/disposition, of good character or disposition, right or proper in behaviour, righteous.

 

N     Motives:  Conscious or unconscious needs/drives that incite a person to some action(s) or behaviour(s).

 

N     Ostensibly:  Seemingly

 

N     Pedagogic:  Of or pertaining to the science or art of teaching, affected with a conceit of learning.

 

N     Reformation:  The act of reforming (forming again) or the state of being reformed.

C     Especially moral improvement.

 

N    Scruples:  Doubt or uncertainty regarding a question of moral right or duty, reluctance arising from conscientious disapproval.

 

N     Utilitarian:  Pertaining to or advocating utilitarianism.

 

N    Utilitarianism:  Actions derive their moral quality from their usefulness as means to some end, as happiness.  Or, The greatest human happiness determines the highest moral good.

Discussion Questions:

 

  1. What is “dirty-hands politics”?

 

  1. According to the author, when is a politician with dirty hands moral?

 

  1. Which philosopher says that politicians have to “learn to be bad”?  How does this relate to dirty-hands politics?

 

  1. If faced with the situations presented in each of Walzer’s two examples, what decision would you make?

 

  1. In your opinion, what situations are dirty hands acceptable?  (If ever.)

 

  1. Are different moral standards applied to politicians?

 

  1. Should dishonest deals be made to win elections?

 

  1. In making a deal with a shady character, Walzer says, “the risks are often great, but the temptations are often greater.  We imagine ourselves succumbing.  Why should our representatives act differently?”  What do you think of this quote?

 

  1. After a candidate is elected, records of his or her cheating to win are uncovered.  What should the consequences be?  (If any.)

 

  1. If a politician says he believes one thing in his campaign, but does another while in power, how should we feel about him?  What if his actions benefited many people?

 

  1. Does having scruples about a shady deal being made make the politician good?

 

  1. How can it be wrong to do what is right? (Even if hands are dirty.)

 

  1. How can we get our hands dirty by doing what we are supposed to do?

 

  1. Do we want someone moral representing us?  Or do we want someone who gets the job done by any means necessary?

 

  1. In your opinion, are dirty hands necessary in politics?  (Can politics function with out them?)