Why
Dirty Hands Are Not Necessary In Politics
By: Matthew Tsuda
A Summary of the Article “Democratic Dirty Hands?”, Written By David P. Shugarman
Shugarman’s Opposing
Views of Walzer’s Article:
Michael Walzer, the
author for the article that supports dirty hands in politics, tries to
persuade us that preferring to be deceitful and cruel at times is the best way
to operate, so long as it creates a greater good for society and the politician
who’s knowingly committing the immoral act feels guilty (Walzer
supports a form of utilitarianism)
Walzer uses an
example that he calls an in extremis situation, which concerns a
politician who is originally totally against any type of human torturing, but
tortures a terrorist to get him to reveal the whereabouts of his planted
apartment bombs before hundreds of innocent people die
Shugarman criticizes
this example by claiming that first of all, in this extremely rare situation
the politician could have considered many other options (such as ordering the
evacuation of everybody in the apartments), and second of all, if torturing the
terrorist was really your last option in order to save hundreds of people,
there would be no reason for you to feel guilty because you’ve chosen the high
moral ground
Walzer also brings
up an example of a politician who deviously “buys votes” through patronage
in order to win an election; Walzer declares that
what the politician did to get elected was morally right so long as he feels
guilty for his morally wrong actions (the fact that he feels guilty should make
people want to vote for
him)
Shugarman opposes
this example by stating that there are many serious problems with supporting
corrupted people and he quotes a point made by the US Supreme Court seventy
years ago: “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.”
* in Shugarman’s examples there are distinct differences between
whether dirty
hands is
acceptable or unacceptable depending on the extremeness of the situation,
whereas Walzer’s treatment of dirty hands remains the same for both
his dramatic
and pedestrian
examples
Shugarman’s Viewpoints On Why Dirty
Hands Is Unnecessary:
if supporters of
dirty hands deem it moral for one politician to “buy votes” or use any
conniving plan, then why shouldn’t it be acceptable for all politicians “buy
votes” or use any conniving plan?
this can create a
spiral effect of widespread corruption and may lead to the corruption within
society (citizens will break the law if they see their own government breaking
the law)
citizens can’t
really tell whether a politician feels guilty about his/her dirty hands act;
during an election campaign, people have a hard enough time trying to get significant
issues elucidated without being expected to know a candidate’s inner motives
and guilty feelings
as well, if a successful and moral politician
does an act that pays off in triumph and is done with the approval of his/her
supporters, why should he/she feel guilty at his/her actions?
we cannot say that dirty hands is democratic
because that would be the same as saying dishonest elections are part of
democracy; the phrase “democratic dirty hands” is an oxymoron
Shugarman’s Defensible and Indefensible Dirty Hands Viewpoints:
there are some situations that some may call
dirty hands that are acceptable, such as if a man whose phone lines have been
cut breaks into a soda pop machine to steal money to make a phone call to the
President to prevent their country from a nuclear war
Shugarman regards
this situation as an acceptable dirty hands case because even though the man
breaks the law (he steals), he should not feel guilty because his actions were
justified and righteous
however, the majority
of dirty hands scenarios are unacceptable, such as the MKULTRA program
which was a mind-control experimentation program, funded by the American CIA,
that deceitfully treated 77 patients who thought they received cures for their
psychological problems but really were maliciously experimented on
the CIA said they had
good-intentions because they assumed that the MKULTRA group was performing
treatments, but Shugarman claims that by having over
70 people’s psyches damaged, MKULTRA’s dirty hands demonstrated
some of the lowest acts in human nature
a final example of unacceptable dirty hands
scenarios would be the notorious presidency of Richard Nixon, who secretly
approved over 3600 B-52 air attacks against suspected Viet Cong installations
and helped to organize the financial support for the Watergate burglars and
White House plumbers
Henry Kissinger was the secretary of state
during the time of Nixon’s presidency, and he was a former Nobel Peace Prize
winner and respected scholar, and saw himself as representing
Kissinger, Nixon, and the MKULTRA program all
offer us prevailing arguments for the rejection of Machiavellism
and dirty hands politics because of their lack of morality and choice of
deceitfulness over the honesty of basic humanity
Glossary of Terms From The
Article
Dirty hands à In
politics, the term dirty hands refers to politicians who make decisions to break a law or
utter a falsehood in order to serve the public interest. The difference between a politician with
dirty hands and a politician who is solely amorally corrupt is that the
politician with dirty hands will be able to recognize and feel guilty for the
moral wrongs that he/she is committing.
Utilitarianism à 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.
In extremis à A Latin
word which is defined as an extreme situation in which there are no other
options available except one (which usually involves ethical dilemma); an
utmost degree; a near death experience.
Patronage à The power
of public officials to make appointments to government jobs or grant other favours.
Imperiled à To put
something or somebody in jeopardy or danger.
Scrupulously
à Acting in
an ethically considerate and principled manner.
Contempt à An open
disrespect for the rules of a court or legislative body; the state of being
despised; the feeling that something is worthless.
Pedestrian à Literally
means a person who walks on-foot; however in the article’s context it means
“simple”, “ordinary”, “common”, or “realistic”.
Oxymoron à A figure of
speech that uses seeming contradictions (i.e. “pretty ugly”).
MKULTRA à An acronym
for Manufacturing Killers Utilizing Lethal Tradecraft Requiring Assassinations.
CIA à An acronym
for Central Intelligence Agency.
Disinformation à False
speech; bogus information/verifications.
Machiavellism à A word that
stems from Niccolo Machiavelli, who was a famous
Italian political philosopher; a belief in deception for expediency.
Discussion Questions:
1.) If you take into consideration Walzer’s
example of dirty hands situations, such as a politician buying his votes, what
are the consequences of the politician’s actions?
My answer: Politicians are supposed to be looked up to
by the general public as role models and leaders, and if they have dirty hands,
then if the public finds out they will do likewise (i.e. if the government is
breaking the law, then why can’t citizens like me break the law?). This may cause prevalent cases of corruption
within society.
2.) Do you agree with Shugarman’s
argument that the phrase “democratic dirty hands” is an oxymoron?
My answer: Yes I agree with Shugarman’s
argument because democracy is a government which is controlled directly or
indirectly by the greater part of the people and it exists to serve
citizens. But if dirty hands and
deception is used by a democratic party to get elected, then it really isn’t
serving its citizens honestly and justly.
As well, one of the main beliefs that has been
woven into democratic fabric is the respect for
law, and if a candidate is
breaking the law, he/she should not be using dirty hands to get elected because
then they’re complete and utter hypocrites for what they believe in.
3.) Is there any validity in Walzer’s
position regarding dirty hands?
My answer: I do not think that Walzer
has many valid points simply because most of his examples are unrealistic or
extreme exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. As well, in the short-term, dirty hands may
be effective to a point, but in the long run dirty hands will likely be exposed
with dire consequences (i.e. over time, President Nixon was removed from
presidency due to his deceitful and corrupt ways with respect to his dirty
hands).
4.) When Walzer is talking
about the politician who buys his votes, he quotes “We know he is doing right
when he makes the deal because he knows he is doing wrong.” What do you think of this quote?
My answer: To me, this quote is absolutely
ludicrous. Just because the politician
knows what he is doing is wrong does not make him right at all! Politicians should definitely avoid simple,
deceitful acts like this one because they clearly show lack of leadership,
decadence in society, as well as foolish acts of gluttony and deceit. The politician shouldn’t have committed that act simply because he knew that he was
doing wrong.
5.) In Walzer’s article he
emphasizes on the need for values and moral rules while simultaneously
acknowledging the place for dirty hands in democracy. In Shugarman’s
article he refers to this in a simile saying that what Walzer
said is “like recommending a recipe that is bound to be botched before it gets
to the table”. Do you agree or disagree
with Shugarman’s symbolic quote?
My answer: I agree with Shugarman’s
quote because he’s comparing Walzer’s emphasis on
moral values to a good recipe, but then goes onto comparing Walzer’s
emphasis on dirty hands as the recipe being “botched” or spoiled before it’s
served. This metaphorically portrays the
corruption that dirty hands stimulates in
society.
Tutorial: Reflection
Written By Matthew Tsuda
The
article “Democratic Dirty Hands?”, written by David P.
Shugarman, was in opposition to Michael Walzer’s article, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”. Shugarman’s article
carefully and cleverly slashed apart Walzer’s article and he noted many flaws in Walzer’s arguments, such as the fact that Walzer picked extremely rare situations for his examples, Walzer made it sound like he totally supported corrupted
government systems, and Walzer deemed it acceptable
for dirty hands to occur under pretty much any circumstance.
Shugarman’s main criticism of Walzer’s
article, however, was the issue of treachery.
Shugarman believed that if a well-known politician
(who was looked up to by the public because of his/her integrity) performed a
dirty hands act, it would institute a whirlwind of widespread corruption
amongst society because citizens would see nothing wrong with breaking the law
if their leaders were also doing so. Shugarman quoted: “if it gets around that this is what it
takes to win, it will be difficult to expect others not to do so in the
future.” This quote helped to convey Shugarman’s argument because it tried to show how the dirty
hands of one politician could affect future politicians who may also use dirty
hands as part of their tactics. Shugarman’s last main line of reasoning against dirty hands
was the fact that dirty hands goes directly against democracy, since democracy
respects the law and it is a government system that’s supposed to represent its
people to the best of its ability. Shugarman quoted: “In this regard, free slaves and
democratic dirty hands are not paradoxes, they are oxymorons.”
As my
group and I discussed Shugarman’s article during my
SLT, some group members came to the conclusion that although they agreed with Shugarman’s arguments that dirty hands in politics is a
negative act of deceit, dirty politics is so common now that if a politician
decides not to use dirty hands, the politician would probably never make it out
“alive” or become successful in the harsh, real world that we live in
today. We also discussed the concern of
dirty hands in democracy, and although we all agreed with Shugarman’s
quote: “But we cannot claim that the dirty hands are democratic, any more than
we could use the term democratic to refer to bogus elections”, certain group
members concluded that it would be nearly impossible to entirely clean out
dirty hands from politics simply because virtually everybody in politics
possesses some nature of dirty hands.
For
myself, I believe that Shugarman definitely had the
stronger, clearer argument and provided convincing and more relevant
non-fictional examples than Walzer. Shugarman’s most significant
and infamous example would unquestionably be the corrupted presidency of
Richard Nixon because it visibly and straightforwardly expressed Shugarman’s opposing dirty hands arguments. Realistically, though, I believe that despite
the advantages of morality and ethics, dirty hands may come to be necessary
under certain extreme circumstances. I
am a strong believer in that good will prevail over
evil and that dirty hands is not necessarily intrinsic to humanity, but I do
believe that in life or death situations, it may result in the greater good for
society. Therefore, all in all, I
believe that there may be a time and place for dirty hands in politics (i.e.
dirty hands could be applicable by a moral politician’s wise discretion) but in
only the extreme cases where all other ethical options are exhausted. Otherwise, dirty hands would likely lead to
the “Slippery Slope Theory”, where if used unwisely and without care, it could
lead to corruption, mistrust, and the ultimate downfall of a leader or political
party.