Posted by Jim Lichtman | Comments

Looking at two recent films, I was struck not only by the similarities in deception but how the underlying aspect of fear transports individuals to act in unethical ways.

“Frost-Nixon” is about the final disintegration of a man’s character.  (For some, that would be assuming Nixon had any character to begin with.)  But what the film shows us is how easy it is to believe your own lies if you’re just forceful and passionate enough in justifying them. 

We’ve all lied at one time or another but, for most of us, we know that we’re caught in a no-win situation; a situation in which most of us ultimately come clean.  But the dishonesty by elected officials, in a certain sense, causes far greater damage because of the anger and cynicism it breeds.  The lies of Richard Nixon and others since cause us to distrust the institutions they represent and carve away at the idealism of a younger generation wishing to serve.

I once asked the head of the Office of Government Ethics why politicians – most of whom are smart people – think they can get away with deceit given the many examples of colleagues who’ve been caught.  His response:  “Jim, it comes down to a very familiar expression, ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ and the simple delusion that it can’t happen to them.”

Nixon used the power of the presidency to rationalize a lie told to protect his own power base:

An incredulous Frost, “Are you saying the President can do something illegal?”

Nixon, “I’m saying that when the President does it that means it’s NOT illegal!”

“Doubt” is about a nun’s irrational fear that her power is threatened by the parish priest, which justifies her lying in order to remove the threat. 

For the imperious Sister Aloysius, her suspicions cause her to doubt every action by Father Flynn.  Three lumps of sugar in his tea raises an eyebrow, a suggestion of singing “Frosty the Snowman” at the Christmas pageant provokes shock, compassion for a young black student becomes grounds for abuse.  Regardless of the lack of tangible evidence, her mind is made up.

“You haven’t the slightest proof of anything!” Flynn says.

“But I have my certainty!’ the autocratic nun declares.  “And armed with that, I will go to your last parish and the one before that if necessary.” 

There’s an added twist in the plot of “Doubt” that gives Sister Aloysius pause, but only for a moment.  Her consuming apprehension completes her conviction in such a way that nothing, not even sympathy, will prevent her from bringing about the transfer of Father Flynn to another parish.

In both “Frost/Nixon” and “Doubt” we have characters that lie to cover up a fear: loss of control, loss of power.  Both Sister Aloysius and Richard Nixon are adamant that they are protecting the greater good in the deception and, sadly, both are willing to go to any length no matter the cost to others.

Watergate became the quintessential political betrayal of trust between the American people and Washington.  The Catholic Church will be dealing with the distrust brought about by the lies told concerning sexual abuse for decades to come.

In the end, Sister Aloysius and Nixon are left isolated, swollen with their fears and distortions causing them to offer-up a semi-apology that is both too little and too late. 

Sitting in the cold austerity of a late winter in the church garden, Sister Aloysius cries to her youngest colleague, “Sister James... I have doubts.  I have such doubts.”

A tired, defeated Nixon looks into the TV camera and admits,” I let down my friends.  I let down the country... I let the American people down...”

Early in “Doubt,” the young Sister James is lecturing her class about Franklin Roosevelt as Sister Aloysius enters and moves to the back of the class, looking for the slightest incongruity in both students and teacher.

Sister James asks a student to explain what Roosevelt meant when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”

The student takes a moment then offers, “I think he was trying to say that there’s nothing really wrong, you know?  So, don’t get so emotional.”

The sub-textual message is lost on Sister Aloysius who is too busy dressing-down a boy listening to a portable radio.

“Maybe,” Sister James adds, “he was saying that the world is good and we need only work together to overcome our problems,”

A lot more compassion and a lot less fear would be a good start.

Posted by Jim Lichtman | Comments

The events surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s decision to appoint a replacement to the United States Senate seat previously held by President-elect Barack Obama grows denser and unnecessarily more controversial.

The New York Times reported (Jan. 1) that Gov. Blagojevich “...had an emissary make a call on the Dec. 24 to Danny K. Davis, a Democratic representative and longtime African-American leader,” to ask if he would be interested in taking the seat.  “Representative Davis met with Sam Adam Sr., a well-known criminal defense lawyer... Mr. Adam said the governor wanted to give him the Senate job.”

Davis said he wanted some time to think about it. 

“The decision, Mr. Davis said, did not take long and required a conversation with his wife, the only one he consulted.”

And what was Davis’s thinking on the matter?  “I felt that if I was to take the appointment I would spend so much of my time deflecting and defending the position that it would take away from my real reason for being involved in politics and political life: to try and find solutions to problems.”

Mr. Davis recommended Roland Burris, a man with “impeccable credentials,” to fill the seat.

What was Burris’s thinking?  He “...spent Friday and Saturday calling nearly 200 people,” the Times wrote.  “...friends, judges, fellow lawyers.  ‘It was all positive,’ Burris said.  “He also studied the law... to satisfy himself that Mr. Blagojevich was within his authority in making the appointment.

“On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Blagojevich... called Mr. Burris... [and] sealed the appointment.”

And what’s the difference?

The difference is, while Burris and Blagojevich focused solely on the legal aspects of the appointment, Mr. Davis, whether he realized it or not, considered it from a very practical and ethical point of view of the people he wishes to serve.

However, several “...black Democrats in the House said Mr. Burris should be allowed to join the Senate despite opposition:  Representatives Maxine Waters of California, Donald Payne of New Jersey, and Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands. 

Adding further controversy, when Blagojevich announced Burris as the replacement, Illinois Representative Bobby Rush put forth his own impromptu opinion at the press briefing and asked the public not to “hang or lynch the appointee...” an unambiguous message that says that if anyone disqualifies Burris, they are racist.

I’m shocked and disappointed that a U.S. Representative would publicly make such a statement.  It’s an insult to any reasonable person, much less black Americans.  

But the underlying ethics of the matter are far simpler. 

This is not about a Senate replacement with “impeccable credentials.” This is about one man’s Nixon-like hold on power and how, in his own words said, “I will fight, I will fight, I will fight until my last breath,” not only for his own innocence but to hold onto the powers of his office no matter the cost to the people whose interests he took an oath to uphold.

Despite all the lawyers, judges, friends, and political advocates, it still comes down to one point that is consistently (sometimes, conveniently) overlooked:  Legal does not always mean ethical. 

When you have a sitting governor like Blagojevich with corruption charges hanging over his head, every decision that he makes, ANY decision that he makes carries the stain of that corruption in the form of doubt. 

To read it any other way is simply to ignore the obvious. 

I would respectfully ask Representatives Rush, Waters, Payne and Christensen to re-read the opening statement from their own House Ethics Manual:

“Members, officers, and employees of the House should:  Conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House...” (Page 1, House Ethics Manual, 2008)

The key word here is “creditably” as in commendably, honorably, admirably.”

Does this appointment rise to the standard of honorable? 

The House Manual further says, “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.” (Page 2) 

Does this appointment rise to the highest standard of trust?

Ethics is not about technical compliance of the law.  It’s about making the right decision even when that decision costs more than you really want to pay.  And that is why as long as a charge of corruption remains against the Illinois governor, ANY choice he makes is the WRONG choice.

Posted by Jim Lichtman | Comments

Continuing my conversation with Bradley James and his time spent with Mother Teresa.  Bradley talks about a side of Mother that most people never saw.

“People always ask me what she was like.  

“We know her as this Nobel Laureate, but what she did as a woman, a Western, European woman in Calcutta, India by creating that religious order in that place and time, it goes down in Church history as one of the greatest miracles.  At every moment, she was willing to risk everything. 

“So, people always ask, ‘What was she like?’  And I ask the people that knew her, because I want to know, too. And everybody’s answer is different. 

“For me, it was her sense of humor.  The woman was so real and so human and so funny, so filled with joy.  It was a joy that I can only describe as a sense of humor, but it wasn’t silly.

“[Mother] saw the reality of suffering and yet, the deepest, most esoteric secret is humor.  It’s so healing and profound. The things that would come out her mouth would happen in the most unexpected ways.

“We were with her in San Francisco once, and there was an election going on.  There were signs all over the city for the two candidates who were running for mayor at the time.  One morning, both candidates ended up at the [Mother’s] house at the same time to meet her in the middle of this huge political battle.

“I was there with the Sisters and we had to take Mother out later, so this meeting was arranged for the morning. 

“These two men came along with their families.  Whenever Mother met people, she always wanted to meet with the whole family so she could give them medals and rosaries, kiss them and bless them and spend time with them.  One of the candidates was Frank Jordan.

“So, she meets with the families and now we’re in the car.  We’re driving through San Francisco and we came to a stop sign and there are signs for Frank Jordan everywhere.  There was one right by the stop sign in front of her. 

“She turned to me and says, ‘Who is this Frank Jordan?’

“I laughed and said, ‘You just met him!’

And she said, ‘Well, I hope he wins.’

“She had just met him and the way she said it was so funny.  ‘Well, I hope he wins!’  You could never tell, because she never wanted to be political.  She just had this twinkle in her eye.

HOME | about-jim | archives | articles | be-honest | books | excerpt | fame-shame | hero | quotes |suggested-links | Site Map | FAQ