In a light, off-hand manner
Meanwhile back at the ordinary everyday White House – they’re still confused (or, more likely, pretending they’re confused). They think corruption is all about intent.
President Trump’s top adviser, Kellyanne Conway, acted “without nefarious motive” when she promoted Ivanka Trump’s clothing line during an interview last month, the White House said.CNNMoney reported Wednesday that a letter from the White House to the Office of Government Ethics said a White House lawyer met with Conway to discuss the rules regarding endorsements by government employees.“Upon completion of our inquiry, we concluded that Ms. Conway acted inadvertently and is highly unlikely to do so again,” says the letter, signed by Stefan C. Passantino, a White House deputy counsel for compliance and ethics, according to CNN.
“It is noted that Ms. Conway made the statement in question in a light, off-hand manner while attempting to stand up for a person she believed had been unfairly treated and did so without nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally.”
The letter did not note any plans for disciplinary action against Conway.
Sigh.
That is not the issue. “She meant well.” “She was just standing up for poor dear Ivanka.” “She was just joking around.” It’s time for the White House people to grow up now. This is not school, it’s the grownup outside world where people have to follow certain rules, including job-related rules. Nobody cares what their mood was when they flouted the rules.
Presidents are forbidden to use their presidency to put extra money in their pockets. This naturally includes promoting their products on television, which naturally includes allowing their staff to promote their products on television. It doesn’t matter if they do it “without nefarious motive”; it matters only if they do it. They are not allowed to do it. Corruption is a no-no. I don’t know how much simpler it’s possible to make it.
It’s like they think that corruption is something “evil” people do, twirling their moustaches, starting off with taking an obscene amount of money for a blatantly immoral act.
As if they’d never considered that corruption is something normal people do, thinking they’re generally “good people”, one small and only slightly dubious act at a time, moving their window of what’s acceptable ever so gradually that it’s almost imperceptable, unconsciously rationalising every step as they go.
Karellen, that fits what I see, too. In fiction (and all too often in non-fiction) it is assumed that “bad” ruthless people will be lonely hermits, with no one to love them. I was reading one (non-fiction) book where the author pegs a man as a ruthless, take no prisoners businessman by his actions while doing business, but then meets his family, discovers that people love him, and “realized” he had made a mistake about him. Somehow we can’t get past the fact that bad things are done by ordinary people. They must have some clue – Ebenezer Scrooge, Mr. Potter – men with no time for family or the niceties of life.
Hannah Arendt had it right with the banality of evil, but not enough people are listening.
Except in this case it actually is mustache twirling evil people being corrupt.
@BKiSA – in that case, what’s her angle? What’s her end-game? What, exactly, do you think she was expecting to gain from promoting Ivanka’s clothing line like that?
I am perfectly willing to buy that Conway had no bad intentions when doing what she did.
But intent is not magic. The harm is real, probably criminally so, and I think “a stern talking to” is definitely letting her off way too lightly – if only for the signal it sends to others.
I think the problem is that Conway, and probably many others on Trump’s team, simply have no idea what corruption looks like or feels like from the inside. It hasn’t occurred to them to think about it. As far as they’re concerned, standing up for and helping out your friends/colleagues is the right thing to do – which, in many circumstances, is correct! But they don’t understand the full ramifications of actually being the people in power.
(Trump still sometimes shows evidence of this when tweeting about something being terrible, as if he’s still part of the peanut gallery making snide remarks from the sidelines, seemingly not realising that he’s the one who could be doing something about it.)
It’s terrible that these grossly incompetent people are where they are, and we should lambast them for it. On the other hand, I think it’s necessary to figure out /why/ they’re doing what they’re doing as accurately as possible, if only so we can craft a message that they’re likely to accept and understand in response.
Karellen, whilst I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly think that Conway’s plugging was inexcusable if she knew it was wrong (I’ll clarify this point further down), there is one phrase from your last post that I do take issue with; Intent isn’t magic. Of course it isn’t, magic isn’t real for starters, but the real reason I despise that phrase is that I have seen it used to club so many people despite the obvious fact that the message behind the phrase – that intent is unimportant – is simply wrong.
Intent is the difference between absent-mindedly leaving a store still holding a pair of earrings and deliberately stealing them at one end of the scale, and at the other end it’s the difference between murder and manslaughter. This is why courts and juries take intent into account before deciding on verdicts and sentencing.
For Conway, it’s undeniable that she meant to plug one of the Trump family businesses, so the question comes down to whether or not she knew that she was breaking the rules. If, on being given the job, she was educated in what she could and could not do in her role, and under any other administration this would be a given, then the reason for her action is unimportant as she knew what she was doing. If that’s the case then she has to go. However, we know what an amateur set-up this administration is, so there’s a chance that she wasn’t made aware of the rules. If this is the case then she needs to be educated, if only because she can’t have known she was breaking a rule if she didn’t know it existed.
So in conclusion, if course intent isn’t magic but it is bloody important.
No. No no no no no. That’s why I said “It’s time for the White House people to grow up now. This is not school, it’s the grownup outside world where people have to follow certain rules, including job-related rules. Nobody cares what their mood was when they flouted the rules.” This is their job, that they went to great trouble to get. It is their job to learn the rules and follow them. It’s their responsibility. That’s just a normal workplace expectation, especially at the executive level.
Conway is a White House adviser. The ethical issues facing Trump and co have been all over the news media even since the election; she can’t possibly have been unaware of them – plus the fact that knowing such things is an important part of the job.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
So no. She doesn’t get to plead ignorance. She has no business being ignorant of such things, much less blabbing on tv shows while ignorant of them.
Oh look, I just saw this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-ethics-white-house-235586
In retrospect, Conway was probably the wrong example for me to use (though it appears I was right about about the amateurish lack of training) but I stand by my criticism of the godawful ‘intent isn’t magic’ bullshit.