March 10, 2010
Did the Ethics of Health Care Reform Help Scott Brown Win in Massachusetts?
By Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.
In the wake of Scott Brown’s upset win in the Massachusetts Senate election last week, a lot of observers have offered their views on how a Republican won in such a “blue state.” A case can be made that the ethics of Washington politics helped to tip the balance toward Brown – and by ethics, I don’t mean scandals, crimes, or corruption. I mean that voters and politicians use different ethical standards in judging which actions are permissible and which aren’t.
Many politicians embrace a utilitarian view of ethics; they tend to believe the end justifies the means. If they view a particular goal as worthy, be it getting elected or passing legislation, most are willing to use almost any means that are legal to get the job done. As many politicians freely admit, the resulting process isn’t pretty. But if the goal is good, it’s OK to play hardball, horse trade, arm twist, spin facts, fudge figures, and break promises. Voters may disapprove of these tactics, but tactics don’t matter in the long run. Results matter.
In a practical sense, this belief is often validated. Elected leaders are rarely punished for using dubious means to advance their agendas. Most voters don’t follow the process of politics closely, and those that do often have their own partisan point of view and utilitarian yardstick. (When the other guys cut corners to win, they’re scoundrels. When your guys win by cutting corners, they’re clever or pragmatic.)
But partisanship aside, most people are not utilitarian in their ethics. Most Americans have an implicit belief in principle-based ethics. They do not believe the end justifies the means; they do not condone using bad means to reach good ends.
Displeasure at the means used to advance reform was widespread, and I believe it sparked a good measure of the voter behavior witnessed in Massachusetts. The utilitarian tactics used to gain votes in Congress violated principles that most Americans believe in. |
You could see this clash between utilitarian ethics and principle-based ethics in the nationwide debate over health care reform. Voters followed the debate more closely than they typically follow legislative battles. Some liked the substance of the reform proposals before Congress and some didn’t. But displeasure at the means used to advance reform was widespread, and I believe it sparked a good measure of the voter behavior witnessed in Massachusetts. The utilitarian tactics used to gain votes in Congress violated principles that most Americans believe in.
The principle of fairness, for example. Many utilitarians feel justified in offering special favors to Senators or constituencies in exchange for support, but a principle-based observer takes a dim view of the resulting inequities. How is it fair that Nebraska would be forever exempted from paying its share of Medicaid? How is it fair that employees with generous health plans would be subject to a stiff “Cadillac tax” on their benefits, while union members and government workers with equally generous plans would be exempted? Even voters who backed the legislation found such inequities disturbing.
The lack of transparency also troubled voters. Part of the problem lay in the fact that transparency was promised but not delivered. A utilitarian might say, “Grow up! There’s a big difference between campaigning and governing.” But people who believe in principles tend to include promise keeping among them. It’s an aspect of honesty.
A lack of transparency raises other ethical red flags. It’s always a worrisome sign when you feel a need to make public policy in secret. It suggests, accurately or inaccurately in this case, that what was being discussed behind closed doors could not bear scrutiny.
There were other utilitarian aspects to the reform bills that alienated voters. There was some robbing of Peter to pay Paul – taking $500 million in funds from Medicare to pay for other programs. The overall approach was power politics, not bipartisanship (each party blamed the other for that). These tactics aren’t necessarily wrong or immoral, but they helped make the push for reform seem less like idealism and more like politics.
Please don’t think, because of the topical examples I’ve used, that I believe one party is utilitarian and the other party is not. Many politicians from both parties tend to focus on the ends, not the means, of governing. The party in power tends to be at an ethical disadvantage because it has more opportunities to choose expediency over principles.
Proponents of health care reform will observe they are also upholding a principle – the principle of the common good. I agree entirely. I’m among those who believe everyone deserves some type of guaranteed coverage, and we ought to find some fair and prudent way of achieving that. There are honest policy disagreements on how to achieve reform: what should be public versus private, what to cover, how to pay for it, etc. Voters will differ on which routes to reform are best.
But a supermajorty of voters agree, philosophically, on how elected leaders should resolve differences and how they should not. They may not use the same terms a professional ethicist uses, but they clearly want less utilitarianism and more principle-based conduct in Washington.
Return to the Home
Last changed: Jan 28 2010 at 9:59 AM