There is a sense of entitlement that has crept into elective office.  I track it to the degree of partisanship that is all too prevalent as well.  The notion is:  I won, which ENTITLES me to reward friends and punish enemies until I leave or am "unelected."  As an aside, term limits only makes this worse.  The logic becomes this is my time to make a name/fame/fortune.  I only have to face the electorate for a fixed period of time.  So, I must get what I can before term limits push me out of office.

I track much of this "acceptance" of bad acts generally to several central issues:

First on my list of villains is the impact of money in politics.  It is obscene that Obama raised $600 million for his campaign.  Similarly, that pols can keep funds in a war chest is wrong.  It is seen as a deterrent to challengers who would have to raise huge sums to ante up for the game.  As was the Supreme Court when it equated campaign spending with free speech.  If you have a million and I have a dollar, we do not have free speech.  We have your speech and not mine.  During the fund raising scandal hearings during the Clinton Administration, one $300K contributor was asked what he thought he would get for his money.  "I expect that when I call the Administration, I will get an audience and some action."  I repeat, campaign contributions are not the equivalent of free speech.

Able people of character are not as able to run without access to money.  Access to money is vital to win.  Getting access, even if you have a lot, requires bending to the color of the money's source.  Bill Bradley started his 2000 campaign with high ideals and interesting ideas.  As his funds dwindled, his message became mundane, his popularity waned as his message lost verve; and he dropped out when he finally had lost his way entirely.  John Corzine, in his campaign to be Senator in New Jersey, had huge billboards touting the "virtue" of his billion dollar fortune because, "I will not be accountable to anyone."  That is even a worse situation, but it highlights the depravity we have slipped to.  And Corzine is one of the better candidates in my estimate.

The point is that as long as money drives campaigns, the people lose control to lobbyists and industries with lots of it and great sums at stake.  I don't have a solution, but I see the problem as being quite clear.

A second issue is derivative of the money problem, and that is the mentality of instant gratification that our society has adopted as its holy grail.  My sense is that this driving force derives its momentum from the Cuban Missile Crisis.  With the threat of imminent nuclear war  that could end life as we know it  for the first time in history, a light switched on that said we may not be here tomorrow so we better get in NOW!  Don't save.  You may not live to spend it.  Don't delay sex, you may not live to have it.  Don't stay in a job you are not happy in because there is a better one across the street for a few dollars more.  Retirement?  Who cares, you may not live that long.

The point is that virtue rarely provides instant gratification.  Reputation is built over time.  Temptation is a flash in the pan.  Who needs integrity if you have to give up tickets to the Redskins from a contractor?

When I was at the University of Virginia, we had an honor code.  It was simple.  "I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal; nor will I accept the same in the academical village."  Because the community at large accepted this standard in its daily actions, many other virtuous things were possible.

You could leave your possessions anywhere on campus.  You didn't lock your dorm door.  Exams were largely unproctored.  You signature on the code in your bluebook was your bond that you had not taken any advantage.  You could even leave a poker table confident that your cards and money would be undisturbed.

I do not assert that I am a better person than others or that I live a perfect life or am at all naive about the world and how it functions.  I do assert that with this experience of the tangible virtues of living according to a credo of integrity, one's existence is freer and enriching in a much more rewarding way than trying to beat the system or "get over" on those I deal with.  It has been true for me.

Further, I was able to do things that others were not able to do because my bosses knew that I would operate within the agreed upon parameters or I would come back for more authority/approval.  If I committed to something it got done, or I was back to the person to whom the commitment was made and worked on the problem and the alternatives.  

As a result, allies and opponents respected and trusted me.  They were not naive either, but they were willing to trust me more than others.  It made me more effective.  When I wasn't in the room, people were willing to defend me when otherwise my interests would be trashed.  In short, it is far easier to conduct oneself in this manner than to attempt to fool others.  They are not as stupid as they would have to be for that deficient strategy to work.  And those who were interested in doing something improper knew not to ask me to participate or condone their actions.

Justice may be slow, but as my father used to say to me, "Justice will prevail.  One need only have patience."  When someone does something unethical or seems to get away with something, one need only be patient.  Because before long they will either get caught or befall some worse consequence.  Someone will refuse to do something reasonable because they cannot trust the person.  Someone will turn them in when they think they can do so with impunity at least.

Deputy Secretary Steve Griles at Interior is now in jail for his involvement with Abramoff.  I suspect a career official blew the whistle anonymously, but effectively.  The most famous example is "Deep Throat of Watergate, who turned out to be Mark Felt at the FBI, who lead Woodward and Bernstein to their revelations about Watergate.

So what to do.  Ethics training is not doing it and won't.  For those so disposed, such training only serves to define the boundaries to be avoided, tunneled, or overcome.  Don Zauderer and I have discussed this on many occasions over the years.  

At a minimum, we need a clarion call in every forum (The Public Manager, ASPA, Public Administration programs nationally) we can think of for greater visibility for virtue.  Beacons of integrity need to be championed and publicized.  

Another set of actions we can take revolve around less emphasis on politicalization of routine governmental functions.  This is NOT to suggest that only career employees can be honest or that non-career folks need to be watched.  There is a balance.

When I started my Federal career in 1970, many of the Assistant Secretaries for Administration and all of the Deputies were career.  Under Nixon, this was changed.  Basic processes that are the glue of representative democracy and its rule of law depend on sufficient support for their existence that long term experience and commitment are necessary to succeed.  

This is not to suggest that a "career-reserved" and lifelong appointment/tenure are necessary.  A bureaucracy distanced from those they serve is a malady as evil as corruption.  But a career commitment to integrity to the taxpayer and adherence to good process is vital to success on these fronts.

The IG's that have been created have not been effective in my view.  The unavoidable "gotcha" mentality so dominates their actions, it has them driven to find noncompliance rather than outright malfeasance.  My experience, with few exceptions, is that more bad actors were forced out of office because they filled out a travel voucher incorrectly than that the corruption they were engaged with was detected or charged.  I can give many examples, but one makes the point.

When I was at the Office of Surface Mining at DOI, I got into a contest with the IG.  And I am a big supporter of internal audit properly administered.  A jealousy had developed by the IG with an audit staff that I supervised to oversee the collection of mine reclamation fees from coal operators.  Somehow the IG staff were threatened by an independent capacity not under their control.

In their audit they found that we had not audited some number of the 28,000 entities who are engaged in this business.  I had  some 50 auditors to do this work.  When I confronted the lead  IG auditor with this inconsistency between mission and resources, he repeated his finding that we had not found $1.4 million of potential funds.

I asked if he thought we could effectively audit 28,000 entities with our staff.  He said, "Of course not."  Then, isn't the question really, how good was the targeting process we employed to choose those we did look at?  I stipulate that we did not find $1.4 million and probably more."

What would have been useful to me as a manager would have been a good evaluation of how we targeted across the dimensions of collections, deterrence, and publicity for enforcement and fairness.  Just cherry-picking somebody we didn't visit helps me not at all.  I couldn't even get his boss to understand the point I was making.  

I have suggested in the past that we need to find one poor *** who screws up and hang him/her in a public square with a sign that says this is what happens to Federal employees and their accomplices for cheating, stealing, betraying the public trust.  About once every six months or so will do.  Of course this is an exaggeration, but the idea is that giving publicity to those who do right and consequences to those who do wrong -- in a timely and public way -- will do more for honor and integrity than all the IG reports and commissions combined.

Whistleblower laws are appealing but don't seem to work.  I can't name another whistleblower after Ernie Fitzgerald at Air Force, and more importantly, he was put through hell to do right for his country.

I, myself, sent three 3-inch binders of activities at my agency that I thought were wrong to MSPB through an investigator.  I was told they found nothing prosecutable.  If that is the test, let's fold our tents and all go home.  Is that the standard we want to hold forth for our democracy?  

Mere process will not get it done.  I think Obama has an opportunity to make a difference and a change, but his early steps do not bode well.  (And I am an ardent supporter!)  Geittner, as bright as he is, should not have been put forth for Treasury with his tax issues.  He oversees IRS in that job.  The sense of irony is argument enough to support the argument. The same holds for Daschle, who as a former US Senator should certainly know better and so should those doing the vetting for the President.  

The taxpayers expect all of us who toil in their service to do better.  Much needs to be done.