An Ethical Dilemma
It was 1995 here in little Pataskala, Ohio. There was a local fight between a small faction that wanted to take over the school board, and the “good guys” allied against them (guess which side I was on!!) It was ugly, at board meetings, in the newspapers, and even with threats of lawsuits (and challenges to duels!)
I was a participant in the fray, both as a teacher/coach, and an officer in the local teachers’ union. I awoke one morning to find a manila envelope wedged in my front door. I opened and read damaging material about one of the “bad guys,” incredibly personal and intimate. It would decimate him and destroy their “cause.”
Was it true, or not? Was it someone settling a personal grudge? Did it matter, if it achieved the political goal of “beating the bad guys?”
In any kind of political career you make ethical decisions; weighing right versus wrong against cost versus benefit. Some aren’t a big deal: do you put signs up in the road right-of-way (technically illegal). Some are tougher: do you “go negative” in a campaign with facts against your rival (and how far do you go.) Some are even worse, do you accept the support of someone who clearly will expect something in return. And then there’s the ultimate question: are you willing to do anything and everything to win?
Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner were faced with this kind of ethical question. A meeting was arranged with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, with the goal of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370
A brief Google search would have found the linkage between Veselnitskaya and pro-Putin positions. A little further digging would have found that she represents some of Putin’s closer allies. Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner walked into a meeting with a Russian with government connections at a time when the Trump campaign was pivoting to attack Clinton, and looking for a way to get it done (and Trump himself was calling on Russia to find Hillary’s 30,000 emails.) That this particular source (whether it was fruitful or not, we really don’t know yet) was so obviously linked to Putin’s regime should have warned them off. But they took the meeting, making the ethical decision that the benefits would be worth the cost.
If they got information “hacked” from the Clinton campaign and the DNC it was illegal. If they were searching for information from any source (especially foreign) to “get Clinton” they may have participated in a pattern of corrupt activity (RICO violation.) Either way, they showed they were willing to do whatever was needed to win.
So those were the ethics of the Trump campaign senior staff. They couldn’t have been so ignorant of campaign ethics and law especially with such a seasoned campaigner as Manafort in the room. No, they made a choice.
I made a choice too. Regardless of our political differences, I called the “bad guy,” met him at the local restaurant, and handed him the envelope. Though the information, true or false, would have changed the debate and destroyed him, I had good reason to believe it wasn’t true. It was a choice, one that I taught my students and my athletes: that cheating to win isn’t winning at all. I considered the consequences, and decided the results weren’t worth the cost.
We won our issue in the end, campaigning on the ideas we believed in. Perhaps the Trumps would have too. We’ll never know, and the price of “winning at all cost” ethics may be their utter destruction.
Great setup, as usual. Interesting topic.
Don’t know the particulars of the situation, obviously, but would you have made the same choice, if you didn’t have good reason to know it was not true? What if you had irrefutable confirmation that it was in fact true?
As an alternative fact (ha, ha), what if you knew (and had the evidence to prove), w 100% certainty, that a school board candidate were a pedophile – but no one else knew?
NOTE: I am NOT commenting on the Trump situation AT ALL: I’m simply playing out the ethical dilemma you found yourself in.
Thanks again for the FANTASTIC writing, the provocative insights, & the well-researched positions.
in 2000 the Gore campaign received (anonymously) a copy of the Bush debate prep-book. They turned it over to the FBI rather than use it. I hope/think I would do the same in your scenario
And now we learn that D. Trump Jr was emailed that this was information from the Russian Government against Clinton prior to the meeting. It no longer is an ethical question about political campaigns – it becomes more of a moral question about accepting aid from a “foreign adversary.”