The Tribune

By Charlie Harper

These are questions that have been debated for centuries.

If you happen to see something wrong; someone committing a crime or an ethical lapse, or even a situation that simply doesn’t feel right to you, what is your obligation?

Are you obliged to report the person or situation to the appropriate authorities? Are you required, by your own or commonly accepted ethical standards, to do anything at all?

Isn’t the ultimate decider your own sense of right and wrong - your own moral code?

These questions are flying around in Washington these days, mostly asking when are the Republicans in Congress; those among the ranks of Trump appointees in the Executive Branch, and on the Supreme Court and other federal judiciaries going to stand up to the criminality, arrogance and graft of this current administration?

These questions have been asked so often, and by so many people, that they have become rhetorical. No reply is actually expected. In the rare case when an answer is wanted, it usually includes the profound influence of Trump’s hammerlock on the GOP apparatus and Congress.

The answer goes something like this: “If a Senator or Congressperson stands up to Trump on a key vote he cares about, the president is open about his intention to exact retribution in the form of an expensive and distracting primary challenge at their next election.”

The general supposition is that those in the three branches of the American federal government know perfectly well that the Trump machine is corrupt and harmful not only to the structure and function of the government, but also injurious to millions of Americans who cannot offer Trump any material support and to whom he therefore feels no protective obligation whatsoever.

Many people believe that those who could impact or reduce the cruel effects of policies such as stripping Medicaid health care coverage from those who arguably most need it simply won’t listen to their own consciences and do the right thing.

The great equaliser in this dismal equation is supposed to be the American voters who brought Trump back to the White House. An early theory was that surely after the Easter Congressional recess, Capitol Hill would be filled with repentant Republicans whose constituents had crowded into town halls and raised their voices to make clear that they are unhappy with Trump’s social policies and government evisceration.

There were indeed many such animated town hall meetings. There were so many that the White House reportedly discouraged GOP legislators from holding or attending them.

As one columnist noted, “the thinking goes that those who supported politicians campaigning on callous policies toward others shouldn’t be too surprised when they end up harmed also. It’s a variation on the old adage that people get the government they deserve”.

In a sense, the current dissatisfaction with Congress and the cowardly nature of its response to Trump’s extremism can be summed up with a distinction. Is a Congressperson or Senator elected to be a trustee who leads with wisdom and the national interest at heart, or a delegate who follows the expressed wishes of those most vocal of his or her constituents?

A trustee should know or learn the best interests of the nation; a delegate leads from behind the mass of public opinion.

These days, the Republicans in Congress are acting like trustees, but the best interests they are following are those of the president. And no one paying attention can feel that Trump puts the national interest above his own. In fact, he seems to have fallen eagerly into the trap of believing that his interests and those of the nation are identical.

That is dangerous for any leader, including our own here in The Bahamas. But when a president hardly makes any attempt to conceal the basic venality of his actions and policies – and when his loyal and fearful acolytes in Congress do little to resist him – people do get upset.

That is apparent in plummeting approval ratings for politicians and in public commentary from all sources.

A pundit wrote that “when government doesn’t seem representative of their wishes, people want accountability for those they hold responsible”. But there are no recall elections for the House of Representatives or for the Senate.

“This leaves lots of people stuck until the next election with a government they didn’t think they were electing and with leaders they don’t feel they can trust,” the commmentator continued. “And when that happens in democracies, that dissatisfaction gets aimed at the system and at the majority.”

In all likelihood, Trump knows he and the Republicans are going to get whipped in next year’s congressional elections, and they have a good chance of losing their slim majorities in both houses. The president is probably pushing his “big, beautiful bill” through Congress knowing this is his best chance to enact many of his campaign promises.

It may also be his only chance, because the perils already apparent for GOP candidates running next year will demand all their time and energy to overcome. And once next November’s elections are in the books, it will be very difficult for Trump to exert the power over the Republican rank and file that he does today.

While Trump may not turn into a classic “lame duck” in 18 months, he will almost certainly be a limping duck by the end of next year with the election of his successor clearly in sight.

The current broad discourse on ethics, morality and any individual’s conscience recalled a tale related by an older friend named Jim. It brought the wider debate down to a much more personal, individual level, and thus offered a different perspective on choice and consequence.

The state where Jim lives requires car owners to submit their vehicles to a mandatory safety inspection every year. Jim dutifully took his aging Toyota to a nearby inspection station. His experience there has left him with a vexing dilemma that may feel similar to those in Congress.

Jim told the inspector he needed only the obligatory annual safety inspection, not the biennial emissions check that analyses exhaust from a vehicle’s engine. Several questionable things happened.

First, the inspector performed the $45 emissions inspection, even though Jim had specified it was not required this year. The inspector claimed Jim had requested it. This disagreement was then put on hold while the inspector did the safety inspection, finding that Jim’s left rear shock absorber was leaking fluids, and offering to make the necessary repairs for $390.

Jim managed to avoid the emissions charge by producing paperwork from last year when his car passed. He then took the $390 estimate to his normal car repair shop, where the mechanic explained that the shock absorber in question was not deficient and that this inspector had also tried to shake down other customers with false claims in similar fashion.

“What do you suggest?” Jim asked the mechanic.

“If it were me,” the mechanic replied, “I’d involve the state police. These inspectors are licensed by the state, and yours in this case is clearly running a scam that could cost you and others significant amounts of money to fix things that aren’t broken.

“I’d file a formal complaint with the authorities, if it were me,” the mechanic continued. “If necessary, I’d then accompany a state cop to the inspection station and demand that they produce proof of their claim that your shock absorber needs to be replaced. They clearly won’t have any such proof. I just rechecked your shocks, and they are fine.

“That inspector should lose his license. He will just continue to defraud you and others like you if no one acts.”

Jim now finds himself in a quandary. He knows that his mechanic is correct. If not reported and held accountable, the inspector will continue his fraudulent behaviour and cheat others. But Jim also knows that if he files a complaint and involves state authorities, he will be drawn into a lengthy bureaucratic process that he wishes to avoid.

And in fact, he later took his vehicle to another inspector who passed it, so he needs to have no further business with the dodgy inspector.

Now what? Should Jim do the right thing, knowing it will complicate his life?

Should the Republicans in Congress stand up to their president?