Put ethics back into politics

It has now been over a week since the congressional midterm elections, and though emotions surely ran high in the months leading up to the races—around campus as well as around the nation—it seems that passions are now slowly receding. Previously outspoken Democrats are attempting to cope with their inability to maintain control over the House, while once equally loud Republicans now ponder their latest victories in both chambers. And though we as Columbia students are still recovering from midterms of our own, it is important that we be aware of the significance that at least one recent election holds for our community and the democratic system as a whole.

The race for New York’s 15th Congressional District—a district spanning Upper Manhattan, and which includes Columbia and the Morningside community—resulted in the re-election of Charles Rangel to the House of Representatives. Rangel has served for 20 terms as a representative, but his most recent election follows on the heels of numerous ethics allegations, including infractions of tax law and inappropriate use of political office. In July 2010, months after resigning from his position as chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Rangel was formally charged with having committed 13 offenses. His trial is to be held on Nov. 15, less than a week from today.

It unnerves me that such a dishonest character could, once again, rise to political office through a democratic process, especially with such ease. More alarming is the fact that, though Rangel has not been proven guilty, even his constituency seems to treat him as though he will soon be convicted. In a recent article in Spectator (“Charles Rangel celebrates re-election weeks before ethics trial,” Nov. 3), one self-described “long-time Rangel supporter” labeled the congressman as a “crook,” while another voter noted that “the charges against Rangel were not important” to him. How could an assumed criminal be elected to Congress? This is just a symptom of a greater problem with our democracy.

One noteworthy issue with the modern process is that holding a political office is not just a career—it is also a job. Most of the allegations levied against Rangel stem not only from ethics concerns, but also from the representative’s unwillingness to pay proper income taxes. It is likely that if Rangel’s position in Congress were not also his principal source of income, he might have had very little incentive to conceal additional, smaller sources of wealth.

The political economist and social scientist Max Weber addresses this point in “Politics as a Vocation,” writing, “The politician must be economically independent of the income politics can bring him. This means, quite simply, that the politician must be wealthy.” If the politician cannot financially support himself, there is little hope that he can avoid corruption, or conduct politics in an honorable fashion.

Another difficulty with the democratic system of representation, and one revealed by the re-election of Charles Rangel, is the potential for what has been labeled as the “tyranny of the majority.” Many writers have recognized this point to be one of the most dangerous pitfalls within the democratic system (including Columbia alumni John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, who discuss the notion extensively in “The Federalist Papers”). In Rangel’s case, by securing nearly 80 percent of the vote—due in part to voters who chose either to disregard the allegations against him or to elect a man they actually acknowledged to be corrupt—it seems as though the electorate standing for honesty, ethical responsibility, and principled action was successfully silenced. If something appears strange in this situation, we must then raise the question: What is responsible for this outcome? I believe the answer to this question lies within the tenets of present-day democracy.

In the end, if the ideal picture of democracy painted for us in the classroom does not agree with our experiences, we first ask why and then ask how we can change it. In response to the latter question, we should use the knowledge we gain from a Columbia education to further understanding of political systems among the wider population. We should show others that democracy has decayed, and no longer stands as the brightest beacon of freedom. If we are to preserve both democracy and our values, we should strive to restore the process according to characters of those before us. In order to accomplish any of this, however, we cannot allow corrupt politicians—such as Rangel—to be our guides.

Ethan A. Perets is a Columbia College first-year hoping to major in biochemistry and philosophy. Living on a Piece of Paper runs alternate Fridays.