Morality vs. Politics and My Job as a GOP Operative
My favorite blog comment about How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative was “Well, that’s refreshing candor from a guy who’s probably going to hell.” It is a favorite because it assumes so much so wrongly.
Setting aside any debate over such a thing as hell, I was never hired by a campaign to be the moral compass. In fact, morality is a slippery slope and not a political dialogue I would willingly enter or incite. I was hired to engineer victory. With so much at stake, morality was not a luxury to be afforded candidates or their staff.
Campaign managers and consultants, in both U.S. political parties, are hired to win. Period. They are not hired to ease the political conscience – if anything they are hired to render it powerless (or at least frustrate it to the point of it giving up and going away). That was the dynamic I bought into when I became a Republican campaign manager and consultant; party v. party; Republicans v. Democrats; winning v. losing.
However, I never bought into the dynamic of Allen Raymond v. the United States government. So when that became my reality, the choice was easy. I never hesitated to tell the truth the moment our government knocked on my door and asked me what happened on Election Day 2002.
As a Republican campaign operative at the Republican National Committee it was drilled into me that election law attorneys serve the purpose identifying the bright line of the law so it could be taunted but not crossed. Anybody who has a problem with that or doesn’t get it doesn’t understand America. America is about self interest, within the rule of law. That’s where I erred.
I broke the law. It wasn’t my intent, but it was the effect. The law is like a wall, on one side the “decent hardworking Americans” like the Cleavers and the Huxtables, on the other felons and convicts. Nowhere in between, or anywhere else, is morality. The reason is because ours is a secular nation. Morality is the domain of organized religion, cults and Bill O’Reilly (allegedly), but not government. So when my judge derided me by asking, “Where was his moral compass?” I couldn’t understand a word he was saying. It was like comparing apples to fire trucks in Coptic. That was also a moment when righteous indignation got on its bench-level soap box and decided to make the law about morality, sending me the clear signal I was doomed to find myself on the same side of the wall as the felons and convicts.
Legislating morality was never my thing. When I was a Republican I believed in lower taxes and less government. I still do, minus the intrusion of snake handling, gun toting GOPers. What I believe in now, though, is compassion in every corner of life. As a felon I can attest there’s little of it directed at former inmates; for a Christian nation we sure don’t often act like it toward our fellow citizens trying to earn their way back over the wall.
The idea of going to hell doesn’t cross my mind much these days; there are too many inside-the-Beltway types ahead of me fooling themselves that they are Ward and Cliff. My suggestion is to not view politics through a morality filter and then get dismayed when elected officials start likewise legislating, because then there really will be hell to pay.
I have to ask. Who cares what you think. You're obviously a convicted felon. In the eyes of the law YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM A CHILD MOLESTER OR A CRACK DEALER. Crack Dealers and Child Molesters have similar fine distinctions between law and morality. Even at this point, you continue to evade responsibility or accountability for your actions.
Not your intent? Horseshit. Elsewhere you write about "taunting" the law. You go on at endless length about the absence of morality "Nowhere in between, or anywhere else, is morality." You're just being dishonest and evasive.
You didn't intend to break the law? And a child molester didn't actually intend to slip the hard one to that little girl. And the crack dealer didn't intend to take money for those little rocks. Right. You knew what you were doing, you knew that there were issues of legality, and you went ahead and did it anyway. What you really mean is that you didn't intend to be caught, you didn't intend to be held accountable.
Life is tough, ain't it.
Well, Hallelujah, and what brings on this conversion on the road to Damascus? This discovery of compassion, in addition to lower taxes and less government as a motivating principle?
So, it's all about You, You, You. Compassion suddenly has become important because you're not getting any. Not that you've expressed any regret or contrition.
If you were up in front a parole board, you'd go down in flames.
Go sing it to someone who cares.
January 14, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ALLCAPS moral outrage isn't helping. Obviously what he did was wrong, that's not being seriously disputed at TPMC. I'd still like to hear his views as to why he did what he did and why so many others do so.
btw, on tell-all books, a great one is John Perkins' “The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption” which was featured in a Democracy Now video interview.
"... John Perkins told the story of his work as a highly paid consultant hired to strong-arm leaders into creating policy favorable to the U.S. government and corporations—what he calls the “corporatocracy. ...”
January 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moral outrage? Nah, just making the point, and making sure no one missed it.
January 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also add that Raymond is partly correct, to the extent that our system encourages an immoral self interest and a rather dog eat dog view of life. He's also correct that courts are often manipulated for political purpose with little regard for principles.
I see deep cynicism in his belief that morality is only the domain of religion or that it's a more rational belief to be entirely self interested. Which is common among capitalists indoctrinated into laissez faire, Social Darwinism, and generally Ayn Randian mythology and devolutionary beliefs. He identifies as a Libertarian, who are particularly vulnerable.
Additionally it's entirely possible such people have biological conditions or are in part products of environments retarding development of healthy morality. We have to remember that people vary for many reasons, and that these issues will never be completely "fixed" but we can hope to understand them better.
Leading primatologists such as Frans de Waal, and going back even to Charles Darwin, have always demonstrated and understood that morality, as we experience it, is actually the product of evolution and serves us tremendously. Social species couldn't exist without it, and empathy and altruism are necessary efficiencies without which higher intelligence is impossible as a species.
But any system, even corrupt and devolutionary ones, are self reinforcing in the short term, till they catastrophically fail. We need to treat this as not only a criminal problem, but also a public health problem, and look at the environmental factors which are encouraging the Raymonds of the world to do so much harm.
And, as any good Christian or Primatologist would tell you, it's important to facilitate redemption, through confession and enlightenment.
January 14, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'd also add that Raymond is partly correct, to the extent that our system encourages an immoral self interest and a rather dog eat dog view of life. "
No it doesn't. People who game the system encourage an immoral self interest and a rather dog eat dog view of life.
While I'm prepared to go with your point that Raymond is a sociopath, a failed Republican, or a victim of environmental circumstances, I'm absolutely unwilling to then go ahead and debate him on the merits as if he were none of these things.
I haven't read all the way down the comments yet, but so far, I'm with Valdron. Raymond made a totally immoral decision about what to do with his life, then broke the law while being immoral. He is now trying to act like being immoral would have been ok if he hadn't broken the law, because this is AMERICA and that's what real Americans do.
It's horse hockey, just like Valdron says, eh?
January 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's overly dualistic. It's not either/or. It's both.
Yes personal responsibility is certainly part of it. That's why Raymond personally went to jail for his actions. He ultimately acted of his own free will. But, there is also a corrupt and twisted ideological environment which encourages the problem by tilting the risk/reward equation towards immoral/unethical acts, and increases the number of people who chose to do so.
The Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton deregulation which led to ENRON is a prime example of how an ideology of laissez faire scuttled rules, thereby green-lighting predatory behavior yielding huge profits, that further corrupted politics and the market, culminating in a huge crash and scandal.
I'm not diminishing his crime. Imo such white collar crimes should carry longer sentences to be proportional to harm done and culpability relative to common crimes. But it's still more important to look at the big picture.
To make a drug dealer analogy, Raymond is a corner dealer, maybe a low level distributor. But get rid of one Raymond and another will just pop up. One has to go after the big fish and the larger issues which create the environment.
January 14, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're making an argument which, while it might have merit in another context, is only going to get you in trouble in this one. Sadly, Raymond doesn't really deserve the benefit of doubt you're giving him.
Yes, an anything-goes atmosphere has an effect on behavior. But I maintain that people gaming deregulation are the ones who create the problem. A naturally moral person wouldn't say "Hey, the regulations are gone so now I can do as much unthinkable stuff as I want"--only gamers do this.
I'd be more willing to cut Raymond some slack if I thought he was an ill-educated, unenlightened guy acting in lockstep with his environment. But he wasn't a corner level dealer; he's an educated, articulate professional with ample exposure to the ideas of which he ran afoul. In context, the claim that he acted in thoughtless lockstep with his environment requires him to be awfully thoughtless, right up there with "she sure looked eighteen to me."
Also please bear in mind that Raymond is not acknowledging that he committed an immoral act and saying he's sorry. He's essentially saying that his morality or lack thereof was irrelevant to what he did--that it was only the fact that it happened to be illegal that got him into trouble. And as Valdron points out later in this discussion, Raymond blames the judge for bringing morality (substitute "ethics" if you like) into it at all.
Sure it's necessary to go after the "big fish." But at the end of the day, America (and perhaps the world) isn't about "self-interest within the bounds of the law," it's about "enlightened self-interest," in the sense of that whole enlightenment thing, with ethics and responsibilities balancing out self-interest at every turn.
The problem with the Republicans of late is not so much that they broke the rules as it is that, over and over, they broke the golden rule. It applies to their approach to elections, to rule of law, to torture, to economics; there's hardly an area of government where they haven't shortened that rule to "Do unto others."
And Raymond, a guy who almost certainly knew better, was right in there with them. So when it comes to going after the big fish, I'd consider him one. I hope it takes him a good long time to get back into the pond.
January 14, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not giving him any benefit of the doubt nor did I say to. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
Acknowledging that an individual has personal responsibility, and also that a system is corrupted, are not mutually exclusive. Try to understand that.
It's exemplified by the phrase "the banality of evil" and also that "following orders" is not an excuse.
January 15, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I might have left it at "I guess we disagree on the finer points," but hey, thank you for pointing out the obvious in your reply, along with the exhortation to try to wrap my tiny little mind around your statement.
I did read what you wrote, I understood it perfectly, and I politely disagreed with your idea that the non-mutual exclusivity of personal responsibility and a corrupt system is a useful point as it applies to Raymond.
January 15, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing "polite" about mischaracterizing what someone else wrote, as you did.
Nor is there anything "polite" about your attempt to play the victim now, for being called on it.
That's called being dishonest. And I would appreciate it if your would stop that.
January 15, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I re-read this discussion and all I see is that we did not agree. While I acknowledge the presence of the environment you speak of, I disagree that Raymond was encouraged by it (your small-time dealer analogy). I see him, given his educational and societal position, as a "big fish," actively perpetuating something wrong.
So I didn't think it was extremely useful to discuss the system as it applies to Raymond, or if you prefer, in the context of talking about Raymond. (In fairness to you, I think there was a spot where I could have been more clear had I changed the words "the claim" to "any claim." It would have been more universal.)
What I am trying to say is that we disagree, which happens sometimes, and it's really not necessary to say things like "you should read my post again" or "try to understand."
When a date goes badly, it's best to kiss on the cheek and walk away. Both parties should avoid the urge to say things like "I bet you have heavy thighs" or "Your teeth disgust me." It just doesn't matter in the end.
(For the record, I'm sure your thighs and teeth are fine.)
If others feel I mischaracterized what kozmik wrote, please feel free to chastise--I'll check back and take my lumps if necessary.
I hope we will find ourselves more in agreement on other issues.
January 15, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
First you say we are a secular nation. Then you say we are a Christian nation. I don't think you can have it both ways. Whatever we are, morality is a concept that rises above religion. It is a concept of decency and fairness that most people recognize, regardless of country, race, creed, or gender.
There are some who believe that good deeds will result in religious reward, and there are some who believe that good deeds are simply righteous for their own sake. Either way, good deeds are moral actions, and they are just as relevant in government as they are in personal life, IMO, because they address how we see ourselves and how others see us.
January 14, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That one word should be enough. But no:
Breaking rules may be a "slippery slope" ... where one thing leads to another. But morality itself? No. People may disagree on the egregiousness of things, but to pretend that morality itself is the problem is to evade the confessional.
Personally, I find your rationalizations both illogical and distasteful. I wish I could say an "encouraging word," but honestly, I can't find it.
January 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may have become convinced that morality is what may be logically and legally compared, explained, condoned, distinguished or sealed.
However, the population of incredibly complex American human beings, each individual and unique in heart, soul, mind and body, has a moral sense in the heart that has a connection to wisdom.
What "works" today may collapse tomorrow because of short term thinking. This is the analogy to short-term profit before folks really understand the product, and long term profit based on a profit that really takes care of its buyer within its objectively reasonable range of purposes.
This is exactly the sort of thinking I witnessed at national convention.
January 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose as a follow up, that I'm glad you wrote the book and put yourself and your culture on such vivid display.
On the other hand, I don't think that benign motives had much to do with it. Part of it was simply the need to cash a cheque when no one was offering you money.
Part of it was undoubtedly revenge on your fellow Republicans for turning their backs on you once you got caught doing their dirt for them.
Part of it is undoubtedly bragging, because in my experience of criminals like drug dealers - they like to brag, and confessionals make for great bragging.
Part of it may be a tin eared effort at redemption, in the way that some particularly sociopathic thug will try to shmooze the parole board with his conversion to Jesus.
You want my take? Thanks for the book, now goodbye. Get out of politics, you aren't good for it, it ain't good for you. Retrain, get a job as a plumber or a carpenter, manage a restaurant (on the other hand, do I want a guy who enjoys taunting the law in charge of food preparation... maybe not). Whatever.
January 14, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we all know what's wrong with Raymond. But I'd still like to hear in detail what his rationalization is, and what details he knows.
Why are you tying to deride and silence that?
January 14, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do have a lot of compassion for people who've been on the wrong side of the law. A lot of our laws are stupid, after all and I think no less of the people who break those.
I also believe in redemption and change and so I hold no ill will towards anyone who has strayed and learned from it.
But it's rather ironic to see a Republican blaming the system the way you are here. It's the fault of how our politics is run, not of the people who bend and break the laws to engineer victories for their employer. It's the same kind of thing we heard from the Wall Street criminals a few years ago -- it wasn't their culture of greed and avarice, they just lived there.
Well, I have some sympathy for that point of view too. But then, I'm honest enough about my politics that I extend such sympathies to all rungs of society. I don't blame the poor for stealing bread the way Republicans do.
You want compassion? Fine, you got it. But I'm still going to raise my eyebrow at you for flaunting and attempting to profit from your criminality. You seem to have a pretty Hobbessian view of the world. Let me know how that works out for you.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 14, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question isn't whether he's learned anything from it, but what has he learned from it.
It's very clear that there's no sense of contrition whatsoever. He says he didn't intend to break the law, well, he knew what he was doing. The truth was, he didn't intend to be caught. He didn't intend to be held accountable. That's the sum of it.
Some guy stealing a loaf of bread who walked into court with that attitude would be doing hard time right now.
January 14, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Valdron. And it's always these types who want leniency for themselves and the harshest punishments meted out to those who truly commit crimes of necessity.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well certainly white collar crime gets off far too easy. But, it's important to actually look at why. The status quo is largely complicit in creating the environment which encourages Raymond. He knows that. It's rampant.
Raymond basically says he doesn't believe in morality; he just wants to be on the winning team. That's incredibly common. It's the history life on earth before the evolution of intelligent social species, and always present in our reptilian brain.
For example, in the interview I linked to above, John Perkins lays out how he was recruited in college by the NSA to corrupt foreign leaders, and basically tell them to play ball and be bribed, or get killed. He points out that they recruited him upon identifying his weakness to power, sex, and greed.
January 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently once a shill for the GOP, always a shill. You don't get a free ride for your amorality by trying to paint the other side as just as bad. The dirty tricks have all been on the Republican side going back as far as Nixon and Lee Atwater.
Apparently you haven't actually learned anything from your experience. I'm sure there are lots of questionable enterprises that would be willing to hire you for your "expertise". The Doonesbury cartoon has been running a parody of your type of moral judgment over the past few months with Duke's firm representing the country of Bezerkistan.
One of the reasons Obama has been getting so much traction is because people want to believe that it is possible to run without a dirty campaign.
Shame on you.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 14, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Insert sound of crickets here) Is this a hit and run post? Do you think you can just dump your self serving crap on us and run away? I agree with Valdron here. Basically the issue is that you got caught. If you hadn't you would still be doing the same shit and traveling on your merry way. There is so much crap in this post but I'll address just a couple of things. First, you are for smaller government? Bullshit! You and your republican buddies have set yourselves up to rob the treasury, see Halliburton. Lower taxes? Yea sure until it's your children and grandchildren that have to pay for the little excursions in Iraq and elsewhere. There is a little saying around here: IOKIYAR. It's ok if you're a republican. Doesn't that about sum it up for you? Now run along and crawl back into the hole you came from.
January 14, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ayn Rand had candor. Republicans had you.
Normal people understand that selfishness is not a virtue. This is why Libertarians consistently poll in the single digits. Republicans would rather win, so they really have no choice but to lie.
Someone with a better moral compass would say America is about something else. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, thought America was about securing the inalienable rights of equal men, as endowed by the Creator.
So candor, my eye. Republicans are so deeply immoral their only choice is to lie and cheat.
January 14, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Normal people understand that selfishness is not a virtue. This is why Libertarians consistently poll in the single digits."
Funniest Libertarian line ever, as well as apt. Thank you.
January 14, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific reception here so far!
Looking forward to the next post!!!
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
January 14, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't seem to let this guy go.
Let's take a look at this:
Essentially, he's saying that winning isn't everything. Winning is the only thing. In his view, right and wrong, truth and lies, everything is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is winning. It's a zero sum mentality that has no room for morality or any other consideration.
I'd suggest that sort of mentality leads inevitably into criminality. When the only consideration is winning, then the only deterrent is losing. Breaking the law? A small price to pay... if you win.
His next sentence is extremely revealing:
In essence, a sociopathic criminal mentality. And what's extremely interesting here is its unwillingness to accept restrictions. Thus, he cannot be amoral on his own, his amorality has to affect and consume everyone around him. A political conscience anywhere must be rendered powerless, frustrated, it must be forced to give up and go away.
And here's the state of politics today...
Bullshit. He got caught red handed, and there was no way out. If he'd been able to lie, cheat, bribe or steal his way out, then he would have.
He expects us to accept that he experienced a pernicious amorality which when he applied it to a campaign actively sought out and destroyed 'conscience' wherever he found it. But that somehow, it never extended to conscience in other parts of his life. Don't think so.
His way of saying he didn't err.
At this point, he's making the self-serving argument that he's not really guilty. His thesis in the last few paragraphs is that law has nothing to do with morality, American society has nothing to do with morality, merely self-interest bounded only by a framework of law.
So when he's saying that the Judge decided to make the law about morality, what happened is that the Judge got it wrong. Here he was, simply acting with self interest, perhaps taunting the law. But the Judge has chosen to make it a moral issue, and therefore convicted him.
He acknowledges earlier that he broke the law, but right here, at this point, he's sort of saying that he didn't. It's the judge who screwed it up.
He's a victim, you see.
A victim of a crazed moralistic judge misapplying the law in the service of this wacky 'morality' ideology.
And now he's branded as being on the same side of the line as crack dealers and child molesters.
I have to say, given his obvious sociopathy, he belongs there.
The judge had it right.
January 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
..Morality is the domain of organized religion, cults and Bill O’Reilly (allegedly), but not government. So when my judge derided me by asking, “Where was his moral compass?” I couldn’t understand a word he was saying..
Morality at it's most basic level is the domain of the individual. It says you are responsible for your own actions. It means you show respect for your fellow citizens, respect for those who are trying to exercise their right to vote. In doing so you show respect for the men and women who have died in this land and in foreign lands to defend that right.
January 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there is a common morality shared by all individuals. In that there is hope that we may find ingenious ways to solve problems, putting the "partisan operatives" out of business. Again, this is a profession where money demands that someone cause divisive culture war so that the business stays brisk.
I'd be pleased if we could replace perpetual party organizations with temporary parties that rise up and form coalitions temporarily to take care of specific tasks.
January 14, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record Mike, you might want to study the record of the Canadian Progressive Party, a movement of farmers, populists and social reformers which emerged in the 1920's, literally from out of nowhere and rose to become a dominant force in Canadian politics, reducing the Conservative Party to third place.
Sadly, the Progressives consistently failed to live up to expectations, notwithstanding capable and even brilliant members. After exploding onto the scene, the Progressives lost ground consistently to more traditional political parties until its rump was finally absorbed by the Conservative party.
An examination would highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of your approach, particularly in a system of government which facilitated third party movements.
January 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is completely tangential, but hopefully more enlightening than you-know-who slagging this guy over and over... On common morality, you might enjoy reading Steven Pinker's article in last Sunday's NY Times magazine.
January 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You-know-who?
January 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect we both do ;)
January 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr FU,
Care to elaborate on why you rated my comment a 2?
January 14, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure: In my opinion civility is a prerequisite for learning anything from a discussion, and there's not nearly enough of it online. I think your post added very little to the discussion, and did so rudely (e.g. "Do you think you can just dump your self serving crap on us and run away?", "Now run along and crawl back into the hole you came from."). What effect did you hope your post would have? It probably felt good to rant a bit, but who benefitted?
January 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, let's play nicey nice with the scumbags that have ruined this country. I think we have seen where that has gotten us. It's time to call them out and to make sure people know exactly who and what they are. This is the game being played by the DLCC and it's gotten us 8 years of Bush. I think I have had enough of that crap to last me a lifetime.
January 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you might want to take this argument to its logical end and attack TMPCafe for inviting him to do a "Table for One" week of posts? Perhaps not patronize the site or something like that?
January 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. I think Valdron has done a great job as well. He compared the writer to a child molester or crack dealer. I didn't even go that far. I think it's a great idea to have the people from the dark side come here and try and explain away their criminality. It's nice to be able to address them directly. Too bad this guy hasn't had the guts to respond.
January 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it, and was not surprised to see it was written by a Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. Pinker has apparently also written a number of related books on the subject. He gets paid to complicate the issue, like his discussion of the family that eats their dog after it is accidentally run over by a car.
Pinker's opening line:
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?
Pinker turns morality into an American Idol where readers get to pick their 'admirable' person, and he sets up the rest of the piece to smokescreen the issue of individual responsiblity. Those who Mother Teresa serves have no where else to turn, and she did what she could to help comfort them. Gates or Borlaug or anyone else aren't going to show up for these folks. The contributions of the latter two are huge and it merely points up the fact that each moral individual should do what they can to improve the human condition.
January 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like Einstein was paid to complicate our nice, clean Newtonian physics. Obfuscating bastard...
First off, the Gates example is sort of a red herring. Most of the piece tries to come up with a set of evolved drives, which confer selective advantage, and which could underlie morality. But if you're a utilitarian, it's hard to come up with a story where, if Gates manages to eradicate Tuberculosis or AIDS, Mother Teresa does more good (though see Mike7Woodson's reply for one possible approach). Do the Calcutta lepers have fewer places to turn than the subsistence farmers dying in central Africa? Is someone's life worth more if they are more isolated?
The example with eating the dog, like the Gates/Teresa question, is an attempt to query moral intuitions: most people believe certain things are right or wrong, but when pressed, can't explain why. Moral philosophers often start with these intuitions, and try to come up with a coherent system that can explain them.
January 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article and from my perspective, here are some of Pinker's opening illusions, even though he has other points worth reading later in the piece (7 or so pages):
*that Gates inspires those who hold corrupt control over so many third world nations to change their ways because he puts his money into disease control in same..
*he misses the fact that Mother Teresa is an example to billions of people worldwise who can imitate her, but not Gates or Borlaugh. She is a woman with very little who gave of herself to help others, and because of this, billions of people the same or better off than her can imitate her and by force of numbers, do more than Bill Gates has done to sustain long term change;
*he is part of the rationalist / secularist effort that discounts moral example and actually fights against it, then criticizes it after having degraded its image with news articles and propaganda such as this(this is really an elitist aggrandizement argument disguised as a rational comparison of charitable efforts);
*few have the wealth or expertise of Gates or Borlaug that they may imitate them, however, nearly everyone could imitate Mother Teresa in some fashion, from pauper to tycoon, and that would change the face of power worldwide;
January 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd that I find myself defending Bill Gates... But if some of his Gates Foundation efforts pan out, he could do an amazing amount of good and relatively little harm. Think about it: Microsoft makes its money from the "Windows tax," a $100-or-so tax on people who are rich enough to buy computers. Some of this money is distributed sideways or upwards, to stockholders and employees. But a lot of it is concentrated, then redirected into efforts to help the worst off in education, disease prevention, etc. It's the exact opposite of a company like Wal-Mart, which screws the poor to feed the rich. I may not like Microsoft's software or anti-competitive practices, but I do appreciate its redistributive effects.
I'm very skeptical of the possibility that many people will follow moral examples. Just look at the millions who sit in churches every week and listen to the Gospel, only to pray for new fishing rods, then go back meekly to their jobs and Horatio Alger delusions on Monday. Sure, hundreds of thousands marched with King and Gandhi, but they all returned to their homes soon after the leader was gone. The power of example just isn't strong enough to change much of anything.
January 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point wasn't to reduce Bill Gates' or Borlaug's contributions. However, to have a contrarian angle the piece falsely reduced Mother Teresa's contribution and falsely compared it. The false can include failure to include crucial angles and information.
The power of example could only be studied if you were able to wave a wand and eliminate it so that you could see the difference. Watch "It's a Wonderful Life" again or for the first time and consider the chief principle recognized there. It is life changing.
Another good film I saw recently with a similar principle: "Peaceful Warrior."
You cannot make the ill-conclusions about the others in church every Sunday. You cannot know what they do, what noble things. Who they donate to, or how they do wrong, if so. Think of yourself. Many people could look at you without knowing you and judge you as yet another spoiled American, doing nothing for others and consuming for self and opining away. How would they know if you did good? And if you announced it, it would take something away from it.
January 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have to read that part again, but I didn't read it as deliberately contrarian, or as denigrating MT's contributions. Rather, Pinker was just making the point that our evaluations of moral worth don't always correspond to the amount of suffering someone's actions relieve. The whole example was sort of tangential anyways.
I've certainly heard of "It's a Wonderful Life," but haven't seen it -- I'll add it to the queue. I think I prefer the life-changing principle in "Life is Beautiful," though: you can't change institutional cruelty and inhumanity, but you can still laugh.
I can't make conclusions about large numbers of individual church-goers. But given the large number of people calling themselves Christian and the small number of good deeds performed, I can do the math. And the high-profile examples of recently-indicted Republicans seem to support the few that even Christ's example has much less power than money and the promise of golf.
But enough of my doing nothing for others and opining away. Time to go back to turning the gerbil wheel.
January 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. I think that you underestimate the power of inspiration and setting a good example.
Mother Theresa doesn't have to inspire *everyone* to emulate her in every way all the time. The result would be a world of Mother Theresa's and that would be no fun.
But if Mother Theresa inspires a few people to make similar levels of sacrifice and commitment, inspires some people to make some kind of committment, or inspires a lot of people to do something nice once in a while, well, I think that makes a difference.
It's fashionable to see the world in bleak terms. But cynicism aside, there are large and generally disrespected portions of the population that contribute as best they can, whether its from volunteering at soup kitchens, donating to food banks, or simply contributing time or money in some way.
There are a great many charitable and cultural organizations which are extremely dependent on the contributions of volunteers... often poor, working or middle class volunteers who don't get charitable tax deductible receipts, sit on boards, get praised in newspapers etc. They do it because they feel that this is worthy
Not all of them are inspired by Mother Theresa. Yet some of them are. Undoubtedly, the example of Mother Theresa inspires some youths to become involved.
If so, that's a good thing.
January 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Life is Beautiful" was Viktor Frankl with humor at the movies. A great film for young, historically detached generations to see.
I don't think you can do the math. You have no earthly idea what good deeds are done in a day. If you did the math, I'd quote Benjamin Disraeli on stats anyhow.
January 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know there's been a lot of work done in psychology on how people will dramatically change their behavior in the right environment (e.g. Stanford prison experiment) or with the right peers (e.g. Milgram experiment). But I don't know of work on how long these effects last once the person is back in his normal environment, or what fraction of people are affected. I'm sure there is some, but I'm not a psychologist, and it's hard to say much beyond "is not" or "is too" about the effects of exemplars without some real data.
...and I'd just have to quote Stalin back at you on statistics.
January 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your honesty here is generous and useful.
I still prefer to believe that most Americans who become campaign managers want to win fair and square-- no matter which party they work for.
"Campaign managers and consultants, in both U.S. political parties, are hired to win. Period."
Yeah…and sometimes when you win, you really lose…and sometime when you win, everyone loses.
It bothers me when people are so willing to quit on themselves and assume they and their candidates aren't good enough to win by playing fair. Even if others cheat, effective legal strategies get overlooked when people are so busy trying to scam the system.
And I guess if morality doesn’t count, that's a little too scary for me. An extreme version of that playing out would be someplace like Saddam’s Iraq. Saddam effectively “won” all his elections by a race to the bottom that was too low for all opponents. But hey, he’ll definitely be in the history books with a special distinction.
So when someone interferes with fair and legal elections...well, "win" what? How long does that satisfaction last--if ever?
"...there are too many inside-the-Beltway types ahead of me fooling themselves that they are Ward and Cliff"
I think these types know exactly what they are, and they must also know what they are not. Maybe one day they will get a little vision and find something useful to do.
January 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most disturbing parts of his screed was his offhand conclusion that amorality was not simply for election campaigns, but for every aspect of the political process.
Karl Rove Government, need I say more.
January 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
January 14, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The RNC lied to you if it implied that the law has bright lines. The most used phrase in a lawyer's dictionary is "it depends," because most of law is a muddle, with competing interests, competing rules and competing tests. Morality is one of those interests, and you ignore morality at your peril. If you don't believe me, ask the "reasonable man."
January 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing in this guy's existence that hasn't already been covered:
"I was only following orders"
Low end operatives such as yourself, sitting at the feet of the masters of the RNC- Segretti and Rove- always drink the kool-aid and justify their hangover the same way. Don't blame me, I'm just a victim of this system (that got caught).
"HAVE YOU NO DECENCY, SIR? AT LONG LAST,
HAVE YOU LEFT NO SENSE OF DECENCY?"
When your ratfucking escapades distort and prevent the political system that is our right from functioning, you should be tarred, feathered, and sent to Pakistan to learn just how "slippery" a slope can get when your kind interferes with the process.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
January 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
and
Cry me a river, Raymond. Where was the compassion when
As it happens, in these troubled times, compassion is not a luxury to be squandered on convicted felons, particularly unrepentant ones such as yourself.
Noel
January 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican Political Culture is toxic. It often starts with cheating in college politics. There was recently an example at the University of Michigan where two young individuals hacked a computer site so that the votes of a progressive party could not be counted for student government. Some of the Nixon operatives started in the same way.
This needs to change. Allen Raymond seems to have gotten caught up in that culture.
What I hear him saying is I have a moral compass I just was not using it. It stunned me when the Judge said I should have been using it. As proof he offers that when the Federal Government came calling his respect for authority -- to use Pinker's term -- kicked in and Raymond did the moral thing --
told the complete truth.
An alternative reading is that morality to him meant not whether you are behaving fairly but rather whether or not the Government should be peering in your bedroom as the Religious Right suggests. So his first reaction to the Judge's question about his moral compass was that has nothing to do with it.
The question is why was his moral compass (in the acting fairly sense) disabled in the first place? Although many of the Republicans act like psychopaths I find myself unable to believe that all of them are. So, I will offer several hypotheses.
1."With so much at stake, morality was not a luxury to be afforded candidates or their staff." --- translation -- I can flip that train switch without a qualm because so much is at stake. Any body would lie to thwart Hitler -- if you can convince people that equivalent stakes are at issue almost anything goes.
2. A belief that people get what they deserve -- if people are suffering it is because they did something bad. So nothing ought to be done to alleviate the situation.
3. A lack of ability to imagine oneself in the other guy's shoes.
So here is Raymond -- he is about less government and although he enables them has contempt for the Religious Right but does think of America as a Christian nation. (Ever hear of the phrase hired gun not to mention contract killer? -- just what could you be hired to do?)
Now he finds himself in prison: something bad has happened to him and he knows that he is not a bad person so that theory goes out the window. He thought we were a Christian nation but how he and his fellows are being treated is not like any Christianity he ever heard of. So now he thinks that some compassion ought to be legislated into government. But he still warns us about electing moralists of the stripe he is accustomed to. I am in complete accord with that warning.
January 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that this is in fact evidence that he has a moral compass at all.
Two things come to mind here:
One is that he was pretty much caught red handed. There was no way for him to lie, evade or otherwise dodge. Well, in that case, no credit for telling the truth. And its not evidence of a moral compass.
Second, this reminds me of a bizarre form of bragging I've seen from particularly arrogant criminals. Essentially, the truly arrogant criminal has no respect for the law and believes it incapable of catching him or containing him. But then, here he is, caught in the clutches of the law. How is this possible? "I did it to myself." The law could not catch him, he undid himself. In claiming that his conviction came from unctiously telling the truth, he sets himself above authority.
Really, this guy's thought processes really are no different from a child molester or a crack dealer. The similarity goes deep, and it goes a lot further than just being a felon.
January 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this guy making any money off of this book? Isn't it illegal for a convicted felon to make money off of his criminal activities? Or is this like the new OJ Simpson book - sort of an "if I wanted to run a corrupt campaign, this is what I'd do"?
January 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As another one of the compassionate types, I thought I caught a hint of some cleverly disguised self deprecating humor lurking in between Raymond's abuses of the 'moral' word. As he is obviously not unknown to Google, a couple of quick cruises through Boston.com, the Muckrakers and abcnews.com provided some more info.
Turns out that after pleading guilty without making excuses, he did tell the Judge he knew he had done a bad thing and served 3 months in jail last year. And as Paul Kiel observed, there are some things worse than jail.
Another part Raymond did not touch on in his post to us was the part where before he went to jail, he spent a fair amount of involuntary time under the wheels of the GOP bus. I don't know how shocked he was, but most of us won't be a bit surprised to learn that they then turned around and blamed him for "getting run over."
There's more, but it's his Table for One.
If I think too much about the actual crime, I get pissed off all over again. Since there's no way of changing history (unless you're Jonah Goldberg), I just want to learn what I can about the dirty tricks, and hope that some current College Republicans and other potential R-thugs will hear his message, including the part about the bus. While hunting down the story, I also dropped by and bought his book online. It has great reviews and should be here in a few days.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for offering up a defense, however mild, of a man who many, including myself see as indefensible.
In my own professional working life, I've had occasion through different forums, as prosecutor, defense council, representing child and family services, and working with various social and rehabilitative agencies, to deal with habitual criminals and to become quite familiar with their rationalizations and pattern of thinking.
So when I say that there's not a lot of difference between this guy and crack dealers and child molesters, what I'm saying is that I've had ample opportunity to see and listen to how crack dealers and child molesters conduct, rationalise and justify their behaviour, and this is just more of the same.
That said, there's plenty of crack dealers and child molesters who are superficially nice guys with a decent sense of humour.
One recurrent feature of criminal types, is that they're always shocked when it turns on them. They're happy to game the system, sell out their friends, or otherwise go their merry mayhemesque way. But when its *them* being thrown under a bus... well, its an outrage and payback is in order.
January 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Saddam was systematically gaming the system...'
George W. Bush in 2004. Kinda makes Saddam like a Republican.
January 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's me, but isn't this what we have all been talking about here over the past few years? We all knew Karl Rove Government (KRG) was not just confined to KR, that it was rampant through out the entire party. What we heard today is just more verification.
I trust your judgments, Valdron, but I get the feeling that Raymond is intentionally choosing his words to provoke outrage and get his point across about how corrupt the political system really is. And there is this bigger picture where what he is saying is not just about him.
After the outrage, this seems like what we need to be listening to and learning from. This is the part where we go from one man's morality to what feels like a nation in jeopardy.
Someone further down the thread mentioned the College Republicans. In case anyone has forgotten or didn't know, Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist were all chairmen of the College Republicans. The latest president of the Young Republican National Federation, Glenn Murphy, had to resign last August, one month after he was elected, because of his arrest for sexually assaulting and performing oral sex on a 22 year old man that was sleeping. Until his arrest, the national GOP had considered him to be one of their "rising stars," apparently unconcerned that Murphy was accused of committing a very similar act on another man back in 1998.
If they manage to not get caught, young Republicans obviously study hard for their roles in the Republican leadership. I think we should pay attention.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be wonderful if any of the vitriolic self-righteous folks screaming at Raymond read his book.Then they would realize he is not excusing himself or saying they all do it. In fact, in his book he says that the Dems aren't even Junior Varsity in the dirty tricks department.
I expected to dislike the book and the messgender, but found that not to be so. The book is witty and engaging .
Also, it seems disengenous for anyone to pretend that there is no difference between legality and morality. Many immporal things are perfectly legal and some moral things are illegal - they are not the same. That's mainly the point allen in making.
January 14, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't particularly consider myself vitriolic or self righteous. Merely blunt. Any criminal lawyer will telly ou that there are two kinds of people in the Justice system - criminals and people who commit criminal acts. The distinction may be arbitrary, but there is a real distinction. Criminals exhibit a series of perspectives - viewpoints, rationalizations, attitudes, etc., that are remarkably consistent and which make them prone to committing crimes, and often susceptible to being caught.
I've met thieves, convenience store robbers, rapists, pimps, scam artists and the like. Deep down, this guy isn't especially different. He's a criminal. He's not a guy who simply happened to commit a criminal act.
As to whether he has a sense of humour, whether he is charming, honest, self-effacing, whether the book is witty and insightful... criminals can be all those things, and still dangers to themselves and the community.
There is a difference between legality and morality. Criminals often draw that difference, to explain how, despite their illegality, they are actually highly moral on some personal level. But relatively few go so far as to announce a complete disregard for any morality whatsoever.
Put it this way. A crack dealer might well justify his existence to himself with the moral position that he will not sell crack to five year olds. In Raymond's view, the only barrier to the electoral campaign version of selling crack to five year olds is whether there's a law against it, and whether there's any safe way to 'taunt' the law.
All I'm saying is, and all I have been saying is, let's have no illusions as to what this guy is.
January 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criminals exhibit a series of perspectives - viewpoints, rationalizations, attitudes, etc., that are remarkably consistent and which make them prone to committing crimes, and often susceptible to being caught.
Oh hell yes.
Mr. Raymond is a sociopath, and I find myself not at all surprised that he has entered our criminal justice system on the wrong side of the bars. He is actually committing another wrong, (which would be in fact, illegal in, say California)by profiting from his crime, thus demonstrating my point, and the point of others that he is a sociopath.
Here's the difference--Valdron, and I, and others here are supposed to calm our hearshest judgement from this thief of democracy because he is charming and witty?
How odd.
Since he's here to discuss his book, I cannot possibly see how that would exclude a discussion of the ramifications of the criminal events which lead him to write the book. And since he continues down the road of sociopathic non-conscience, it can hardly come as a shock to anyone that the tone would be shrill. The subversion of democracy was great, insofar as the intent was great. It was organized, and it was deliberate. That is was incompetent is of no matter.
I find myself thinking about the requirements of the conspiracy statutes here. One's guilt in that crime does not depend on the success or failure of the criminal enterprise, but in the offense to decent, right-thinking folks that two or more individuals should get together for the sole purpose of planning a criminal act. It's such a total affront and subversion of all of the things that are both implicit and explicit the Rule of Law, that it should and is punishable by law.
I find little difference between that level of affront to decency, and the affront that the same criminal(s) should then go out and profit for the same crime for which decent people found him(them) guilty.
January 15, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Raymond,
You are apparently unaware of the fact that the words "morals" and "ethics" are synonyms. So, no, morality is not the exclusive province of religion. Didn't you take Philosophy 101?
No wonder you didn't understand the judge.
Here's the definition from the online version of the "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language", which includes no reference to religion.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Synonyms - moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous
No wonder you ended up in jail.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnow,
I disagree with you that morality and ethics are synonymous. There's an important distinction between them.
Morality is "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" and "conformity to the ideals of right human contact."* Ethics is "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation."
Please note that the definition of morality not only is a doctrine of conduct, it is a conformity to that conduct that implies an internalization or belief in the concept. Ethics defines what is good or bad and puts it in a social context; that is, it deals with behavior rather than belief.
I see that Mr. Raymond, by referencing morality rather than ethics, is giving himself an out for how he behaved in his work for the Republican party. I agree with him that morality has no place in the kind of work he did for the political campaign, because belief in "the ideals of right human contact" is a very personal thing.
However, ethics--ethical behavior--is a social contract among people that is necessary for civilization to continue. Whether you want to go along with Aristotle, Kant, or Utilitarians, ethics is what allows us to get through life with a reasonable expectation that others' behavior will not be to our detriment, if not for our benefit.
Ethics should have featured prominently in Mr. Raymond's conduct, and it did not. He knew the harm that would result from his actions, and he went through with them anyway. He does not have to believe that "right human contact" is important; he need only see that the society in which he lives expects ethical behavior from him and others.
His is a cynical nature, I believe, that sets his values according to the benefit he can receive at a given time. Ethics does not allow for this fluid kind of opportunism, nor for his specious rationalizations and clear disavowal of responsibility for his actions.
*Webster's Collegiate, 11th Edition
I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like.
January 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since hearing about this book I've been interested in reading it; being involved in politics I am/have been curious about the actual mechanics of election theft.
But now I'm concerned that by purchasing this book I am somehow validating these things by financially benefitting Mr. Raymond.
The feeling I have is similar to wanting to read Mein Kampf or American Psycho; what possible good do I expect to come from such base and malevolent writings? The comments so far lead me to believe this is the political version of OJ Simpson's book If I Did It.
I am not so academic nor such a political dilettante that I can dismiss the ethical question of who benefits from this book- me in the knowledge I gain; or Mr. Raymond in his barely concealed contempt for naïveté of the voting public.
A hard choice.
January 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"America is about self interest, within the rule of law."
I guess I always believed in a different America. The America I believed in was slow to war and quick to victory, one that was more interested in tilling their own fields that colonizing foreign lands. I thought we were the ones who put limits on government with a Bill of Rights, a "different kind of empire", as the Europeans used to call us. When I thought of America, I thought of something the father of a friend of mine wrote in his memoirs about his experiences as a POW in a Japanese concentration camp. When their camp was liberated, the men were given the opportunity to do to their captors what had been done to them, but they didn't because "Americans don't do that".
What George Bush has demonstrated that my America was a myth. This is your America.
So, anyway, I admire you for putting yourself up here for a grilling, so I guess I'd like to keep things civil and just ask: since this an America where self-interest is the only morality, what do Democrats have to do to be able to stomach doing this stuff so we can win some elections?
January 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the current play of national policy, all this umbrage over an act that violated some putative but minor norm of political warfare seems a bit overwrought. Can anyone say “Faluja” or “Abu-Ghraib?” That’s what I call violating norms of behavior.
It does occur to me that Mr. Allen is playing a Lyndie England to Karl Rove’s Donald Rumsfeld. Like Ms. England, Mr. Allen avers a low rank, absence of chain-of-command authority, and with no voice in strategy but only tactic. He humbly confesses that, as befits his rank, he possesses no special training or perspective with regard to the rules of engagement. In this he defers to the “guidance” of his “superiors.” In short, like Ms. England, Mr. Allen followed the directives of those who held both the responsibility and the authority for such actions as he took, relying on their moral leadership as befitted their rank.
Personally I have sympathy for this defense. It was wrong to place Ms. England in the position that she found herself and it was wrong to do so to Mr. Allen. The judge’s protestation “Where was his moral compass?” is utterly disingenuous. It was blaming Lyndie England for Abu Ghraib.
Mr. Allen is confused about what has happened to him. He speaks of morality but can’t find his culpability because he can’t find the moment when he chose his actions. He concludes, wrongly, that it wasn’t a moral moment with the attendant responsibility to choose. It was combat where victory and defeat are the only issue. It is Mr. Allen’s personal problem that he has tasted the pleasures of a-morality but must, for his own good, sacrifice those pleasures on the altar of some unkown god.
Ours is a greater problem. Lyndie England was betrayed by the U.S. Army. She is gone but the Army is the same and will generate a thousand more Lyndie Englands unless it is reformed. And so it is with our political process. I am reminded of the 1960 presidential election where it appeared that the Democrats had stolen the election in the Illinois vote. We will never know but it might fortify those who would swoon at the suggestion of corruption in our electoral process to remember this story.
January 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that if we simply let these shenanigans pass, then inevitably, Abu Ghraib and Fallujah will come to pass in America...
If they haven't already? Read the reports out of New Orleans? Thousands of people abandoned in the Convention Centre while FEMA dithered and the President played Air Guitar. Barbara Bush breathily announcing how well its worked out for the victims. Armed Blackwater patrols out on the streets, confiscating property and shooting civilians, the police force of Gretna threatening to fire on refugees. Years later, thousands of people living out of trailers. A 'reconstruction' program that seems to be a version of ethnic cleansing... Does any of that make you proud as an American? Does any of that remind you, just a little, of Fallujah.
How about this: The crime of driving while black? Draconian drug laws? Major sentencing disparities between blacks and whites? Massive rates of incarceration of the black population? Brutal prison conditions?
How about this: 'First amendment zones' behind chain link fences often miles from events - effectively temporary concentration camps. Ominous warnings to Americans to 'watch what they say'. Homeland Security being deployed to find Texas Legislators.
How about this: Florida 2000, a 'brooks brothers' riot/threats of force and violence stop a recount. The Supreme Court issues a nakedly partisan decision so utterly without merit it refuses to allow it as a Precedent. In seven states (southern) Felon voting laws disenfranchise large proportions of the black population, and are used to illegally disenfranchise even more. Voter caging and vote suppression tactics are commonplace. A triple amputee war hero's face is morphed into Osama Bin Laden. And on and on and on...
Are you comfortable with any of this?
If Fallujah and Abu Ghraib aren't home in America yet, how long you think you got?
And where does the slippery slope start?
January 15, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Nothing in this brutal rejection of your reply should be interpreted as a desire on my part that you curtail your colorful participation in this discussion.)
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Like the palace guard, I see ghosts walking about in our current political turmoil. We didn’t get to where we are because of Raymond Allen. In the proper perspective his place is as comic relief with his petty ambition and his pathetic ethical sensibility. No Hamlet like contemplation of his nature is going to reveal some compelling truth.
Your bill of particulars does not describe some trivial dysfunction of the social order. There is a profound problem, a rot if you will, that has the dead appearing on stage with the living and calling for justice. So let’s not make too much of this business of his except as entertainment.
January 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think we're up against here? Dracula?
Hmmm. Yes, evil comes down to just one monster, and all we have to do is track him down to the carpathians, bust open the coffin, plant a stake in his heart and its care bear land all the time? Hugs for everyone!
Do you think that WWII was simply Hitler? He killed those 6 million jews while the other Germans backs were turned? Maybe Hitler and a few dozen henchmen?
No, sorry. It's not one bad guy, and everyone else is okay. It's a movement. It's a lot of guys, some in big ways, some in small ways, but they're all working together and they're all pushing to overthrow everything you believe in. Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy? Wingnut welfare? The mighty Wurlitzer?
Raymond here is a part of it. He's a sociopath, a criminal, he's whatever. But he was part of it. He believed in it, not all of it, but enough of it. He believed in that whole 'less government/more repression/republicans forever' shtick. He believed in four more wars, and bigger better bombs. He might not have believed in all of it, he might have laughed at the Christian fundies and thought George W. Bush was a scumbag. But the parts he wasn't believing in he was willing to go along with. He went along with it because winning was everything, and morality didn't enter into it. Morality was just something to be frustrated and blocked and gotten rid of, it got in the way.
He still doesn't believe in morality, he's pretty much said it clearly. He believes in compassion now that he needs some. He didn't believe in it before.
Here's the thing with Raymond. He screwed up, and he got thrown under the bus for it. Compassion wasn't part of his culture, nor was morality, it was all winning, and winning for the agenda or the cause or the volk or whatever. If it had been someone else screwed up got caught, he would have thrown them under the bus without a second thought.
But it was him. So there he is thrown under the bus, never expecting to be in that situation, and pretty upset that all those guys he would have stabbed in the back without a second thought are stabbing him in the back. He goes to jail. His career is over. What does he do? He finds political Jesus. He discovers compassion. He writes a tell all book, partly for the money, partly to brag, partly to get back at his pals who stabbed him in the back and threw him under a bus, and partly to go out and get some new friends. Yeah, seen it all before.
But you know what? Raymond was the real problem. Raymond and a thousand guys like him. Without them, there's no Bush, there's no Guantanamo, there's no torture. A thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand like him. The movement.
So there you go...
January 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree but I still believe in redemption
January 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you Raymond's own personal Nancy Grace? He did his time and so there is no possibility of letting the shenanigans pass. Are you one of those prosecutors who have gone round the bend and want the death penalty for jay-walking? Your obsessive desire to punish seems more closely related to abu ghraib and Gitmo than his remorseful, but funny, memoir.
You clearly have not read the book because then you would know that Raymond never was a Bushie, but instead is one of that dying species a moderate Republican.
Seriously, I think you need to get a grip, take a few deep breaths and get a different job. The reason our justice system has become so oppressive is the fanaticism of DA's who pervert the law because no punishment is ever enough.
January 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You started out ok by identifying the activity as "political warfare", but then drifted off into military matters.
Here is something for you to ponder about. Suppose Allen was fighting to get the most moral and competent people on earth elected but the competition was tough because the opposition was so adept at fooling the masses they had them convinced that the other party was run by Lucifer himself. In that situation would it be appropriate for Allen to use dirty tricks against the opposition to get his woman elected?
January 17, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was an article in LiveScience recently that found a correlation between hypocrisy and high morals.
I have no problem believing that such an internal conversation takes place in some people. But I have to wonder how they justify the part where if someone has to cheat to become that doctor, their performance may be less than stellar for the people they want to help.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The classic case is the one given in texts in which a German who is hiding a Jew in his basements is asked by the Gestapo if he has any Jews hiding in his house. According to Kantian ethics not lying is a perfect duty that has no exceptions, according to Utilitarianism it is the consequences of the action that matter. So the former would seem to be compelled to tell the truth while the latter would be compelled to lie.
January 20, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The greatest sign of a group bankrupt of ideas is when a group is willing to change the rules or game the system to win instead of simply trying to spread the wisdom of their ideas. I thought Schwarzenegger put it well ...
"I feel like, if you're all of a sudden in the middle of the game start changing the rules, it's kind of odd. It almost feels like a loser's mentality, saying, 'I cannot win with those rules. So let me change the rules.'"
January 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having given it more thought, I am wondering why it is that TPM Cafe asked such an obvious dip shit here to shill his book, which I hope no one buys.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he is a fellow human being and might be brought to redemption (not religious redemption but moral)
January 17, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Redemption is fine, but I am not a big fan of those who have redeemed themselves immediately turning around and making pronouncements (and profit) in the same field/area where they lost their moral compass. The redeemed need not spend the rest of his life under a Mother Theresa-like vow of service and poverty, but he _should_ sit quietly supporting himself through legitimate labor and contributing to his community for, oh, at least ten years before he starts giving lectures.
sPh
January 18, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder if he knows the meaning of "puta."
January 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most of the commenters here would be well served to read Raymond's book. First of all, it's a fascinating journey into the seamy underworld of political operatives. Second, it is very funny. I can't emphasize that enough. Third, Raymond never masks his disdain for the Bush and Rove crowd, a disdain that persisted throughout his career and kept him from getting some plum jobs--so you don't have to feel altogether dirty while reading his very informative book.
I also think that some of the self-righteous folks who are comparing him to crack dealers and child abusers should keep in mind that the crime literally didn't hurt anyone. Sorry to outrage you, but the phone-jamming stopped before 9:00 AM, and I don't think anyone was kept from the polls. It's a crime, but it's a victimless crime, really, for practical (as opposed to ideological) purposes. The problem, as always, was the cover-up. The criminal activity was halted when the "perp" was told that it was a crime. Until Raymond got a phone call at 8:30--while he was feeding his kids breakfast, to humanize him just a bit--he believed that what he was doing was political chicanery but not illegal.
I admire any book that is entertaining and informative, and while I deplore his aiding and abetting a "criminal enterprise"--the Republican Party--throughout his former career, I also applaud him for his forthrightness now. Don't heap all the sins of the Bush administration on Raymond's head, he doesn't deserve it.
January 14, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people might well call me a self righteous prig. They might call me judgemental, stubborn, unforgiving, even cruel. They might consider me a heartless bastard, a cynic, and just a big blue meanie.
I can live with that. That's cool.
But let's not make any mistake that it was a 'victimless crime.' Prostitution may be a victimless crime. Drug possession may be a victimless crime. After all, people consent to have sex, to sell sex for money, to sell drugs, to buy drugs, to consume drugs.
But the American people didn't consent to have their Democracy shit upon and subverted. The Democrat candidate didn't consent to have his phones jammed. The voters didn't consent to have their calls jammed. So don't give me this victimless crap.
The stunts that guys like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and that whole forest of win at all costs operatives are out there corrupting democracy.
Free elections are only free if they're fair. Rig the game, then its junk. You've got Saddam Hussein's Iraq with better PR.
January 14, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dem candidate didn't agree to have "his" phones jammed? Your commentary on this whole matter really is fact-free, isn't it? The candidate in question was Jeanne Shaheen.
January 16, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
. Well I would not call prostitution a victimless crime in that it coarsens the relationship between men and women in general. As far as drug use, I would not call that a victimless crime either since the drug addict eventually becomes a burden to society. Even if s/he does not become a burden to society under Kantian ethics it is our duty to improve ourselves and not let ourselves degenerate into torpor.
January 17, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am stunned that such an intelligent person cannot make the simple connection between "law" and "morality". Every single law ever written, since the beginning of time, legislates morality. Even a speed-limit law is based on the belief that it is immoral to risk driving recklessly fast and put other motorists into life-threatening danger.
Raymond violated election laws by jamming Democratic phone lines on election day. That's such an obvious moral issue, that I am simply stunned that he cannot see it. That he still cannot see it. He understands that he broke the law. But he doesn't understand that what he did was immoral. That scares me. It scares me to think that there are other lawyers with advanced degrees who are like this.
And yes, I agree with him that we as a nation do not handle our felons very well. Yes, we need compassion. But his lack of ownership, his OWN INABILITY to be compassionate towards those he harmed, isn't making it any easier for me to empathize with him. What I hope he does is not simply play the victim, but change his life in ways that create the kind of positive change he talks about.
January 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Hitler's law requiring Germans to report any Jew to the authorities was quintessentially moral???
January 17, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Setting aside the particular laws broken by Mr. Raymond, it is wrong to equate law and morality. When laws can be changed yearly, and when they hold the support of only bare majorities, or when only a small lobby has asked for it, it stretches the concept to breaking.
And when a law remains on the books that some feel is prima facie immoral, what then? Slavery, and of course the tension over abortion. How about recreational drugs?
Lots of laws in finance are very dependent on context, may or may not be prosecuted. Morality rarely allows the kind of discretion prosecutors apply, avoiding difficult cases that might not persuade a jury. I'm a softie on taxes, never make large deduction claims, but what about the uncertain categories?
Kind of like climate is what you expect, but weather is what you get, morality is what we hope for, and law is what we get.
January 14, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm coming in at the end here, but I have to speak my peace.
While not a convicted felon, I committed a very serious crime when I was seventeen years old. It is still on my record 15 years later. I can never be bonded or work for a financial institution. I accept it and have moved on, but that is where my sympathy for Raymond ends.
As others have stated, he feels no remorse for his actions. His excuse is a cross between "everyone else was doing it" and "I was just doing my duty."
This bullshit about the law being some kind of tightrope is just silly. In criminal law, crimes have specifically defined elements, and ignorance of those is not a defense.
Intent is a key element of crime. Raymond is arguing that he did not intend to commit the crime until he did it, or that he didn't know he was doing it when he did it. Both points are moot as they are not legitimate defenses, legally or morally.
I, for one, do not believe that a person should be able to commit a crime and then profit by writing a book about it. If he wants to come clean via interviews or if the book serves some common good and the proceeds go to the victims or charity, maybe an exception could be made.
What this man did undermines our entire system of government. No, Raymond was not hired by a campaign to be a saint. But if he wanted to get into politics, his goal should have been PUBLIC SERVICE, regardless of how many marks are in the win column.
Raymond's post is self-serving and sleazy, and I would say the same about anyone in any party who engaged in this sort of thing.
Finally, there is a question of civility and low ratings being given on that front. Yes, this is Josh's "house," and Raymond is a guest. But we are all guests as well. And if I am at a house party, and someone says something asinine, rebutting that statement is not rude at all, so long as it does not come to blows.
So that's my three cents. I will not buy this guy's book, and so long as I am a guest here as well, I reserve the right to call bullshit when I smell it.
January 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to keep things clear just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. If the illegal was the same as the immoral we could make murder moral by passing a law allowing it.
January 17, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Makes ya' wonder what the hell this crook's kids think of what he did to be convicted of a crime.
Oh ... That's right they have no clue to what Daddy's done.
Hmmmm . . .
~OGD~
January 14, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to the people who tried to danpen the initial shrillness festival in the comments here. I was starting to get the same feeling as hearing fingernails on a blackboard. A few of the earlier ones sound a lot like hellfire and damnation fundies. It's depressing when evidence for the "liberals are shrill" generalization hits you in the face on blogs.
January 14, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In our defence, we aren't presented too often with somebody who sits down in the cafe and says "Hey, I spent years engaging in political dirty tricks, did some illegal stuff, and the judge was wrong to ask me what was wrong with my moral compass."
I haven't read the guy's book and it may be interesting to hear more of what he has to say, but it's not hard to figure out that jamming a candidate's phones is an attempt to thwart efforts to get voters out to make their choice.
January 15, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Liberals as shrill" Hmmm I wonder where that meme comes from? Oh yea, I think it might be Rush Lintball and Bill O'falafel. I'm tired of getting kicked in the teeth by the right wing shills in the media. I don't think it helps anyone on the left if you are advancing their agenda by using their terminology.
January 15, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shrill? Thats very nice. I'm glad you've got such a casual laid back approach. Sorry to offend you with my observations that a criminal without contrition is merely a criminal.
January 15, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are hardly a Liberal. I'm sure the comment couldn't have possibly been aimed at you.
Heh.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 15, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But occasionally, things are situational. Among my own kind, I am considered a classical conservative. Among Australopithecines, I've been considered a forward thinker. For T-rex I'm quite progressive. And I recently spent time among a colony of transvestite slime molds who took me a lefty, I generously shared water with them and took my leave.
January 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as you didn't get any on you.
I'm sure you'll recover.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 15, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweetie, I think what you're trying to say is:
"Hi. My name is Allen, and I'm a sociopath."
January 14, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Raymond seems penitent, and if its real, its to be accepted graciously.
Apart from the morality question, what he and others did/do, skewing the election process, is an assault on Democracy, and that's what should be condemned.
January 15, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Penitent?
I must have missed that part.
Was it where he said "I wasn't hired to be a moral compass."
Was it where he said, "My job was to get rid of the moral compass (political conscience) or frustrate it until it went away."
Was it where he said America has nothing to do with morality.
Or where he got all outraged that the judge seemed to be making a moral judgement on him.
Was it where he admitted he broke the law, but said he hadn't intended to.
January 15, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Val,
near the end of his commentary he said:
To me, that sounds penitent,
and I find SOME merit in the following, as I don't want politicians legislating morality:
January 15, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
I read his call for 'compassion in every corner of life' as more of a personal plea.
Basically, he had no use for compassion until he decides he needs some of it. Now compassion is a good thing.
Essentially, its a plea for compassion for Raymond. Fundamentally selfish.
And his argument that morality has no place in politics or law is of a piece with his earlier statements and seems to be a repudiation of his conviction.
January 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okey Dokey :-)
January 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compassion is not what morality/ethics (yes they mean the same)is all about. Central concepts are "justice", "duty" "the impermissible", the "permissible" and the like.
But it is just like the conservative mind to think that morality/ethics (they mean the same thing dear) is like charity: a nice thing to do but not required
January 17, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am curious about this morality thing, especially since I'm hearing "I don't want politicians legislating morality."
It's important to be on the same page about the use of this term. Some people feel that "morality," by definition, is a religious term, as in "morality is ethics with God attached" or "not all morality is ethical."
But I suspect that when the judge asked Raymond where his moral compass was, he was using a more secular definition of morality, which can easily be interchanged with "ethics." God may or may not be interested in free and fair elections, but the Founders certainly were, and in that context, any attempt to tamper with elections would be considered both unethical and immoral. (It might even be said that for many of the Founders, God was a pretty secular being.)
I also suspect that Raymond knows the history of the ethics/morality question, and uses the word "morality" quite deliberately in an effort to muddy the waters and curry favor with separation-of-powers folks.
Again, he may be a nice, charming guy and no doubt will have interesting things to say about the details of political maneuvering as the week wears on. But no matter how I slice it, I see him as an almost infinitely manipulative person who knew when he was hired that what he was doing was an offense against democracy and went along with it in the hope that the best spinner would ultimately prevail.
He's still spinning, with his admonition about legislation through a "morality filter" leading to disaster. If congress legislated through the kind of "morality filter" that I think the judge was talking about, which is pretty much a secular ethics one, we'd all be just fine.
If he posts again, it will be interesting to ask him exactly what kind of "morality filter" he thinks the judge was applying.
January 15, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
AS I posted yesterday "moral" and "ethical" are synonyms, as anyone who has taken a Philosophy 101 course knows. Mr. Raymond obviously hasn't.
Within the definitions of the two dictionaries I consulted there is no mention of religion.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnow,
Please see my comment on your comment above. I disagree with moral and ethical as synonyms (more specifically "morality" and "ethics," which I think is more pertinent to Raymond's argument).
I'd be interested in your take on what I wrote.
I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like.
January 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
AS I posted yesterday "moral" and "ethical" are synonyms, as anyone who has taken a Philosophy 101 course knows.
Gosh, I thought I remembered having a long discussion about the differences in grad school. Musta hallucinated that.
;^)
January 16, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
what grad school was that???
January 17, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a woman of mystery, I try never to reveal specific details about myself--but I went to a Catholic university and a secular grad school. Professors in both programs recognized a difference, at least in public perception, between ethics and morality. Some people believe that ethics and morality are the same, some believe that "morality" is bad because it's tainted by crazy religious belief, others believe that "morality" is more important than ethics because of the same religious beliefs that the others think are crazy.
It's a bit more complicated than that, of course, but I think if one were to Google around a bit, one would see the distinction in practice even if the dictionary definitions don't provide a distinction.
January 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Democracy of thieves is still a den of thieves for all that
January 17, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeking the advice of a friend I think I have found a way that will allow me to buy this book without feeling like a passive accomplice.
After reading the book I will circulate it among friends, and when that circle is exhausted I will donate it to a library.
In this way Mr. Raymond will financially benefit once, and only once.
January 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that an understanding of what is really at stake is where you have strayed.
Ethical and moral conduct must precede and guide all other endeavor. Without that the value of our achievements are negated. It takes an honest person to avoid the self delusion of success that was achieved dishonestly.
January 16, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very late to the party and no one will read this but a little venting is in order.
First, where the hell do you get off that we somehow get our morality from religion?
Doesn't happen. Never has, never will.
Most normal people don't need religion to tell them that it's wrong to steal, murder, cheat, etc.
Like the capability for language, it's hard wired into normal people.
What you were involved in was not just illegal it was also MORALLY disgusting. Were you normal, an alarm would have gone off in your head when you skipped across that line. You should have required no lawyer to paint that line for you. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS.
Interesting that now that you are an ex-con you want compassion. All of a sudden you 'get' compassion. You find that YOU need it. So now it's necessary, vital that the world be a compassionate place.
Like so many conservatives I've known you are completely oblivious to the plight of others until something happens to you.
Your belief in 'low taxes' and 'small government' are a clue to your moral deficiency.
Steeply graduated taxes aren't just practical they're also moral and just. Government has to be as big as it needs to be to fulfil its obligations.
Small government allows the morally challenged an easy ride over that LINE and low taxes allow the challenged to pillage at will.
Christian nation. Now you're all worried about Christian nation - show YOU a little Christianity.
Well back to school bub; at its founding about 17% of its people were religious adherents and in case you missed class that day, the "founders" were almost exclusively diests.
You're some piece of work, virtually identical to every other conservative I've known. All of you are a stain on society.
January 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
.Secular ethics is as old as Western civilization. Look up Utilitarianism, Deontology, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics. In fact just crack open any encyclopedia of philosophy and look under "ethics" and you will get a taste of the secular foundations of what is right and wrong.
The Paradox of the Conservative mind is that as much as it "preaches" morality/ethics it has absolutely no clue as to what on earth it is other than narrow egoism.
That is why they have to rely on some fictitious grampa in the sky to keep them in line
January 17, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice one! Well said.
January 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Republican mantra that they believe in lower taxes and smaller government is a leftover from the decades when they were in the political minority in government. What they were really doing was complaining about the fact that they had no say on what the money was spent on. It just manifested itself as a complaint about taxes and spending, a phrase that worked for them in elections. As they showed when they held the presidency and had tight control of both houses of Congress, their desire to spend on the goodies they were interested in, rather than implement the small government they carped about for decades, was what was really important to them.
January 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
You're absolutely right!
January 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't whether his action was right or wrong or illegal; his problem was that he wasn't as big a fish as he thought, or was led to believe. He pulled Sununu's chestnuts out of the fire and went to jail for it. No destroying evidence or obstruction of justice for you, buddy.
Raymond says that morality isn't part of the equation, only cold