CRITIC AND INVESTIGATOR of RFC, Senator Fulbright is a former president of U. of Arkansas.
SOMETHING TO PASTE IN YOUR HAT
Senator Fulbright, moved by scandals and low ethical standards, makes a speech to be read and remembered
Two congressional investigations have revealed widespread betrayals of trust. Last week in the Senate, William J. Fulbright of Arkansas made this timely speech on the grave moral issue that confronts not only every public official but every citizen: MR. PRESIDENT: when the Subcommittee on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation undertook its study, more than a year ago . . . I expected, just another case study of an agency. . . .
Before we had proceeded very far, however, it became evident that we were dealing not simply with a legal or legislative problem, but with a moral problem. The first case to which my attention was called was one involving the employment, by a borrower, of an RFC employe who had recommended the granting of the loan. The Board of Directors of the RFC thought this practice quite proper. I thought it improper. So from the beginning we were confronted with a difference in ethical standards.
It presents a very difficult problem. It is difficult because the evils to be dealt with are so seldom amenable to the processes of law. When confronted with an evil, we Americans are prone to say, "There ought to be a law." But the law does not and cannot. . . reach those evils which are subtle and impalpable. . . . The law cannot prevent gossip. . . . It cannot restrain men from avarice and gluttony. It cannot restrain a man from betraying his friend. In short, it cannot prevent much of the evil to which men are, unfortunately, too prone. The law being inadequate, men long ago supplemented the law courts with courts of equity, where the spirit of the law, rather than its letter, is paramount. -Underlying the law are the codes of ethics promulgated by the great religions and recognized by all civilized men as being essential to a humane and enlightened existence.
The law alone is not enough
As our study of the RFC progressed, we were confronted more and more with problems of ethical conduct. What should be done about men who do not directly and blatantly sell the favors of their offices for money and so place themselves within the penalties of the law? How do we deal with those who, under the guise of friendship, accept favors which offend the spirit of the law but do not violate its letter?
What of the men outside government who suborn those inside it? They are careful to see that they do not do anything that can be construed as illegal. They operate through lawyers-men who are known as clever lawyers; a cleverness which is like the instinct of the rat that knows how to get the bait without getting caught. Many businessmen, ostensibly reputable businessmen, employ these knavish lawyers to circumvent the law and enrich themselves at government expense. Too often the law cannot touch them.
Who is more at fault, the bribed or the bribers? The bribed have been false to their oaths and betrayers of their trust. But they are often relatively simple simple men - men of small fortune or no fortune at all-and they weaken before the temptations held out to them by the unscrupulous.
Who are the bribers? They are often men who walk the earth lordly and secure - members of good families, respected figures in their communities, graduates of universities. They are of the privileged minority. . . . Is it too much to ask of them, the favored few of our country, that they behave with simple honesty, with that honesty which looks, not to the letter of the law, but to its spirit?
The essence of what we have been studying in our committee is but a reflection of what may be seen in many other phases of our national life. The government and its activities are, in a very real sense, a mirror of our national life.
Let us consider what has developed in our colleges where the characters of our young men and women are being molded. Our colleges, under extreme pressure from the alumni, have become so intent upon winning football and basketball games that they use any means to gain their ends. They. . . make a mockery of the whole concept of amateur sport. . . . They corrupt not only the hired players, but also the entire student body who learn from their elders, the cynical, immoral doctrine that one must win at all cost.
A byproduct of this doctrine led naturally to betting and to the shocking episode of the widespread bribery of basketball players in New York. I find it difficult to blame the players. They are but following a logical sequence of influences.
This question of the moral strength of our people is not just an internal domestic matter. . . . The vast majority of great civilizations have been destroyed not as a result of external aggression, but as a consequence of domestic corruption.
I wonder whether in recent years we have unwittingly come to accept the totalitarian concept that the end justifies the means, a concept which is fundamentally and completely antagonistic to a true democratic society. Democracy is, I believe, more likely to be destroyed by the perversion of, or abandonment of, its true moral principles than by armed attack from Russia.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this problem of moral conduct is the revelation that among so many influential people morality has become identical with legality. We are certainly in a tragic plight if the accepted standard by which we measure integrity of a man in public life is that he keep within the letter of the law. . . . The growing size and complexity of our government, as much as we may deplore it, only emphasizes the need for a clarification, a restatement, of the moral standards of governmental conduct. When our government was small, when it took only 10% of our earnings in taxes, we could afford a certain amount of official boodling. Today it has become too important. We simply can no longer afford moral obtuseness in our public officials.
Scandals in our government are not a new phenomenon in our history. What seems to be new about these scandals is the moral blindness or callousness which allows those in responsible positions to accept the practices which the facts reveal. It is bad enough for us to have corruption in our midst, but it is worse if it is to be condoned and accepted as inevitable.
An old faith, must be renewed
Is there anything we can do here in Washington to help our country reaffirm or reestablish a higher concept of public conduct? Some weeks ago I suggested, informally, that it would be beneficial to have a commission of eminent citizens designated by the Congress to consider the problem of ethical standards of conduct in public affairs. I renew that suggestion now. . . . Such a commission. . . would be a catalytic agent, stimulated by public indignation, to draw forth meaning from the mass of data revealed by the several current investigations. The commission would evaluate the conditions. . . and, drawing upon its combined wisdom, would restate again or formulate anew principles which, it is to be hoped, would strengthen the faith of all decent men in our democratic society.
Too many people in our nation do not believe anything with conviction. They question the precepts of God or of man, indiscriminately. The values of life which were clear to the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers have become dim and fuzzy in outline. . . . The principal objective of the study I suggest is the restoration of the faith of our people in the validity of the traditional precepts of our democratic society. . . . I am unwilling to accept the view that nothing can be done, that the moral deterioration, which is so evident to all, must continue to its logical conclusion which is the destruction of our free democratic system.
No comments:
Post a Comment