August
20, 2002 9:25 a.m. Go
Down, Carl. The “ethics” dodge. Realer than thou. And more.
ell, well, well. Carl McCall, the likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee
in New York, has let it all hang out, religiously. In a church the other
day, he “shed his usual reserve and turned to the story of Moses
to explain why he is running for governor.” Those are the words of
a New York Times report — and if McCall is “reserved,”
he is one of the few New York politicians — or politicians anywhere
— to be so.
Continued this report,
“[McCall] told how God called Moses to abandon his comfortable shepherd’s
life to do something seemingly impossible — to lead the Jews to freedom.
Then Mr. McCall suggested a parallel in his own bid to become the first
black governor of the state, after nearly eight years as the state comptroller.”
What McCall said
was, “When the Lord calls us to do something important, when the
Lord calls us to do something that’s never been done before, the
Lord assures us He will be with us. So I feel that the Lord has called
me. The Lord has called me to provide the leadership and the direction
and the vision that New York State needs.”
A couple of quick
— and obvious — points. When a politician tells you he’s
on a mission from God, watch out. That sort of messianism is dangerous
in politics. Every now and then — a Lincoln as the Civil War brews
— fine. But a New York gubernatorial contest in 2002? Gimme a break.
Second, if another
politician — one not a black Democrat, for starters — had talked
this way, the media establishment would be going nuts. Stark-raving
bonkers.
And they wouldn’t
be entirely wrong.
The
German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has denounced what he calls the
coming American “adventure” in Iraq. And so, all systems are
normal: Europe condemns Yankee “adventurism” while benefiting
from the stability and safety that American military action brings.
Nice.
Wasn’t
that an amazing thing Brent Scowcroft did, dumping his anti-intervention
op-ed in the lap of the administration? This thing is almost Shakespearean
in its complexity — its psychological, human complexity. Scowcroft
is Bush the Elder’s friend and foreign-policy partner. They authored
a book together, giving their grand view of the world. Scowcroft’s
“protégée” is the current national security adviser,
a woman who holds the post he held in Bush I. Etc. Layer upon layer. A
little creepy, too.
Anyway, my friend
and old boss Bill Kristol has a
stringent response in The Standard, and I contributed my
own two cents at David Horowitz’s super-lively frontpagemag.com.
Thomas
Sowell, my hero, had a typically
bracing column the other day. In it, he mentioned this murky, goofy
business of “ethics.” (Is “ethics” simply a way of
avoiding saying “morality”? Another time.) Sowell said,
The proliferation
of “ethics” courses in our educational institutions over the
past few decades might lead some to think people must be more ethical
now. Yet the corporate scandals of our times suggest that ethics courses
in business schools have failed completely.
The big problem
with accepting words is that it can keep us from examining realities.
The reality is that ethics courses have not failed. They have succeeded
in doing something wholly different from what the public was led to
believe they were doing.
In their various
guises, courses on ethics at all educational levels have tended to promote
moral relativism, undermining the very concept of right and wrong. In
other words, many ethics courses are themselves frauds.
This provoked many
thoughts, and a memory. I’m in college, at the insufferable University
of Michigan, and Adm. Hyman Rickover — the “father of the nuclear
Navy” and by now very elderly — has been invited to speak. The
dean — Peter something — treats him very rudely, and so, quite
naturally, do the kids.
But during the Q&A,
there was a pretty good question, from a girl leftist with a bone through
her nose (or something). She said, “Should ethics courses be required
in nuclear-physics programs?” And Rickover said, bluntly, “I
don’t think so. People can go to church, or Sunday school.”
The crowd erupted
in jeers and boos. But what a thoughtful, wise, and, in a way, deep answer!
I’m also reminded
of another instance. Al Haig spoke in the same auditorium, before an audience
even more hostile, naturally. One girl — with a green mohawk or something,
looking as “alienated” as she could — manned the microphone
and delivered a blast.
Haig attempted some
kind of answer, then said (roughly), “You might try to learn something,
miss, as your looks won’t get you everywhere.”
Maybe he shouldn’t
have said it. But, in that time and place, under those circumstances,
it seemed warranted, and hilarious.
In
the current (London) Spectator, there’s a nifty
review by Jonathan Sumption of a new book by Ludovic Kennedy, having
to do with the British criminal-justice system. Kennedy thinks that the
country could do with more “diversity” on the bench.
Jonathan Sumption
ends his review,
As for the social
background of judges, if Ludovic Kennedy can spot an injustice in spite
of being an Old Etonian, why should the same not be true of Lord Justice
Lloyd, who allowed the appeal of the Birmingham Six? Lord Justice Lawton
was one of the more streetwise judges of recent times, but he rejected
the appeal of the Guildford Four in spite of that fact, and in spite
of having been to Battersea Grammar School.
I love both the thinking
and the piquancy in those sentences.
By the way, is it
just my imagination, or is every judge depicted on an American TV show
or in an American movie a black woman? If a being came from outer space,
and imbibed our television and cinema, he would think that courtroom judging
was the special preserve of black women.
In the current Austin
Powers movie, the judge in some world court is a black woman — a
representative from Nigeria. This is an awfully spoofy movie. Is it spoofing
the very trend or habit I’ve just described? Hard to say.
Every
now and then, we chronicle here those sayings — those utterances,
asides, whatever — of GWB we particularly like. (We also pay attention
to some of those we especially dislike.)
Talking to visitors
to the Iowa State Fair the other day, Bush said, “My man Zoellick,
who’s a trade guy, and Ann Veneman [the secretary of agriculture]
are going to work hand in hand to make sure agriculture is the cornerstone
of good international trade policy.”
My man Zoellick,
who’s a trade guy . . .
I’m not quite
sure I could explain why I love a president who talks like this. Either
one grasps it or one doesn’t. (Please excuse the cop-out.)
You’ve
heard me gripe before about the strange kind of resentment formed against
Tiger Woods. Earlier in the season, he was going for the Grand Slam, something
that’s never been accomplished in the modern era. And people —
many of them — were actually rooting against it. They said it would
be “bad for golf” — the first Grand Slam since Jones did
it in 1930, earning a ticker-tape parade in Manhattan.
Below is an exchange
from a Woods press conference at the PGA last week. I’m not sure
who the questioner is:
Q: Now that you did
not win the British Open, looking back, could you say it’s good for
golf maybe that you didn’t win all four in one year this year and
that in the big picture, that’s a good thing for golf?
Tiger was utterly
incredulous. Wiping his eyes, he said, “You know what, dude? I can’t
give that to you.”
What else could he
say? And neither can I — give it to him.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
ell, well, well. Carl McCall, the likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee
in New York, has let it all hang out, religiously. In a church the other
day, he “shed his usual reserve and turned to the story of Moses
to explain why he is running for governor.” Those are the words of
a New York Times report — and if McCall is “reserved,”
he is one of the few New York politicians — or politicians anywhere
— to be so.
The
German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has denounced what he calls the
coming American “adventure” in Iraq. And so, all systems are
normal: Europe condemns Yankee “adventurism” while benefiting
from the stability and safety that American military action brings.
