Ethics Panel Discusses Scrupulo-politico

By Broadside Staff Writer Jared Trice.
Photo by Assistant Photo Editor Teddy Meyer

An ethics panel discussion was held in the Johnson Center Cinema last Tuesday night as part of the Mason Leads program. The panel included Richard Norton Smith, a scholar in residence at George Mason University, Juan Williams, senior correspondent at NPR, Elizabeth Martin, president of the League of Women Voters, Toni-Michelle Travis, an assistant professor at Mason, and Student Body President Zack Golden.

Dr. Renay Scales, director of Multicultural Research, introduced the panel. Scales also introduced Rebecca Cooper, a reporter from WJLA, who acted as the discussion’s moderator.

Cooper opened the discussion by presenting the audience with the question: “Does ethics matter in politics?” and quickly manipulated the question into the plural by saying, “Do ethics matter in politics?” Cooper then asked the panel the same question.

“Yes, but it can be quite costly,” said Travis, who was accounting for the collective good versus the individual’s, said. Travis attributed her statement to Edmund Ross, a journalist and senator from Kansas best remembered as the individual who cast the deciding-vote against the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868.

The discussion continuously evolved into more focused arguments inside the realm of ethics. Cooper brought up the idea of derogatory advertising. On Sept. 29, a political advertisement, which was not endorsed by the Obama Campaign, was released with the intent to incite fear in its viewers—particularly the swing voters. The advertisement focused on the likelihood that Senator John McCain could once again develop cancer, in which the allegedly inexperienced Governor Sarah Palin would take office.

As stated, this tactic was not endorsed by the Obama Campaign. Instead, as one student in the audience explained, it was used by the 527 groups or American organizations that do not make direct expenditures to any candidate and therefore avoid regulation by the Federal Election Committee.

In response to this student’s remark, Smith insisted that “the beauty of our system is also what makes it a noisy, loud and incoherent free-for-all.”
Williams claimed that politicians must do whatever it takes to win an election. After that election has been won, the politician may then focus on ethics. Golden added, “As long as these tactics continue to work, we will continue to see them.”

When asked if character counts. Smith, who has directed five presidential libraries, juxtaposed ethics with character in politics. Smith argued that when former President Richard Nixon decided in 1972 to bring China out of its self-imposed isolation, Nixon acted in the interest of both the People’s Republic of China and the West. At the same time, Smith argued, Nixon betrayed his own principles.

As the discussion progressed, Cooper directed a question to Travis, who specializes in Women and Gender studies: “Do you think women are more ethical than men?”

“I don’t think women are more ethical,” said Travis, “I don’t think they have been given the chance. We also know women enter the office later in life. No, I don’t think women are more ethical.”

Cooper wrapped up the discussion with the question, “Do you think politics is nastier today?” to which Smith responded, “This is an echo channel in which we inhabit. This is not a presidential election; this is a melodrama to end all melodramas.”