The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics

PUBLISHED IN THE “OUTLOOK,” MAY 12, 1900

PUBLISHED IN “OUTLOOK,” MAY 12, 1900

The two commandments which are specially applicable in public life are the eighth and the ninth. Not only every politician, high or low, but every citizen interested in politics, and especially every man who, in a newspaper or on the stump, advocates or condemns any public policy or any public man, should remember always that the two cardinal points in his doctrine ought to be, “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” He should also, of course, remember that the multitude of men who break the moral law expressed in these two commandments are not to be justified because they keep out of the clutches of the human law. Robbery and theft, perjury and subornation of perjury, are crimes punishable by the courts; but many a man who technically never commits any one of these crimes is yet morally quite as guilty as is his less adroit but not more wicked, and possibly infinitely less dangerous, brother who gets into the penitentiary.

The eighth and ninth commandments apply especially to public life. Every politician, whether powerful or not, should remember them. So should every citizen interested in politics. This is especially true of anyone who supports or condemns a public policy or public figure in a newspaper or in a speech. Two principles should always be at the heart of that person’s beliefs: “You shall not steal,” and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Of course, many people break the moral law expressed in these commandments. They are not justified simply because they escape the law. Robbery, theft, perjury, and persuading someone to commit perjury are crimes punishable by the courts. But many people who technically commit none of these crimes are still just as guilty morally as those who go to prison. The people in prison may be less clever, but they are no more wicked and may be far less dangerous.

As regards the eighth commandment, while the remark of one of the founders of our government, that the whole art of politics consists in being honest, is an overstatement, it remains true that absolute honesty is what Cromwell would have called a “fundamental” of healthy political life. We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we can not afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our Republic permanently to endure. No community is healthy where it is ever necessary to distinguish one politician among his fellows because “he is honest.” Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life, it matters not how brilliant his capacity, it hardly matters how great his power of doing good service on certain lines may be. Probably very few men will disagree with this statement in the abstract, yet in the concrete there is much wavering about it. The number of public servants who actually take bribes is not very numerous outside of certain well-known centres of festering corruption. But the temptation to be dishonest often comes in insidious ways. There are not a few public men who, though they would repel with indignation an offer of a bribe, will give certain corporations special legislative and executive privileges because they have contributed heavily to campaign funds; will permit loose and extravagant work because a contractor has political influence; or, at any rate, will permit a public servant to take public money without rendering an adequate return, by conniving at inefficient service on the part of men who are protected by prominent party leaders. Various degrees of moral guilt are involved in the multitudinous actions of this kind; but, after all, directly or indirectly, every such case comes dangerously near the border-line of the commandment which, in forbidding theft, certainly by implication forbids the connivance at theft, or the failure to punish it. One of the favorite schemes of reformers is to devise some method by which big corporations can be prevented from making heavy subscriptions to campaign funds, and thereby acquiring improper influence. But the best way to prevent them from making contributions for improper purposes is simply to elect as public servants, not professional denouncers of corporations,—for such men are in practice usually their most servile tools,—but men who say, and mean, that they will neither be for nor against corporations; that, on the one hand, they will not be frightened from doing them justice by popular clamor, or, on the other hand, led by any interest whatsoever into doing them more than justice. At the Anti-Trust Conference last summer Mr. Bryan commented, with a sneer, on the fact that “of course” New York would not pass a law prohibiting contributions by corporations. He was right in thinking that New York, while it retains rational civic habits, will not pass ridiculous legislation which can not be made effective, and which is merely intended to deceive during the campaign the voters least capable of thought. But there will not be the slightest need for such legislation if only the public spirit is sufficiently healthy, sufficiently removed alike from corruption and from demagogy, to see that each corporation receives its exact rights and nothing more; and this is exactly what is now being done in New York by men whom dishonest corporations dread a hundred times more than they dread the demagogic agitators who are a terror merely to honest corporations.

One of the founders of our government said that the whole art of politics consists in being honest. That overstates the case. But when it comes to the eighth commandment, absolute honesty remains what Cromwell would have called a “fundamental” of healthy political life. We can afford to disagree about currency, tariffs, and foreign policy. But if we expect our Republic to endure, we cannot afford to disagree about honesty. No community is healthy when it is ever necessary to single out a politician among his colleagues because “he is honest.” Honesty is less a virtue deserving praise than an absolute requirement for effective public service. If a man is not honest, we have no right to keep him in public life, however brilliant his abilities. It hardly matters how much good he may be able to do in certain areas. Probably very few men would disagree with this principle in the abstract. Yet many hesitate to apply it to actual cases. Outside certain well-known centers of festering corruption, relatively few public servants actually take bribes. But the temptation to be dishonest often comes in subtle ways. Many public officials would indignantly reject a bribe. Yet they will give certain corporations special legislative and executive privileges because the corporations have contributed heavily to campaign funds. They will allow sloppy and wasteful work because a contractor has political influence. Or, at the very least, they will let a public servant take public money without providing adequate service in return. They do this by tolerating poor service from men protected by prominent party leaders. Actions of this kind involve varying degrees of moral guilt. But every such case, directly or indirectly, comes dangerously close to violating the commandment against theft. That commandment surely also forbids helping others steal or failing to punish them for it. One favorite plan of reformers is to find a way to stop big corporations from making large campaign contributions. The aim is to prevent corporations from gaining improper influence through those contributions. But the best way to stop them from contributing for improper purposes is simply to elect the right public servants. We should not elect professional denouncers of corporations. In practice, such men are usually the most servile tools of corporations. Instead, we should elect men who say, and mean, that they will be neither for nor against corporations. Such men will not let public outcry frighten them away from treating corporations fairly. Nor will they let any interest whatsoever lead them to give corporations more than their due. At the Anti-Trust Conference last summer, Mr. Bryan sneered that “of course” New York would not pass a law banning corporate contributions. He was right to think that New York would pass no such law while it retains rational civic habits. The law would be ridiculous and impossible to enforce. Its only purpose would be to deceive the voters least capable of thought during the campaign. But there will be no need at all for such a law if public spirit is healthy enough. It must be sufficiently free from both corruption and demagoguery to ensure that every corporation receives exactly its due and nothing more. That is exactly what is now being done in New York. The men doing it are feared by dishonest corporations a hundred times more than the demagogic agitators are. Those agitators are a terror only to honest corporations.

It is, of course, not enough that a public official should be honest. No amount of honesty will avail if he is not also brave and wise. The weakling and the coward can not be saved by honesty alone; but without honesty the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community. When this truth is accepted as axiomatic in our politics, then, and not till then, shall we see such a moral uplifting of the people as will render, for instance, Tammany rule in New York, as Tammany rule now is, no more possible than it would be possible to revive the robber baronage of the Middle Ages.

Of course, honesty alone is not enough for a public official. No amount of honesty will help if he is not also brave and wise. Honesty alone cannot save a weakling or a coward. But without honesty, a brave and capable man is merely a wild beast in public life. Every lover of justice should hunt him down. No corrupt man can possibly do his duty to the community. Neither can a man who condones corruption in others. Only when this truth is accepted as self-evident in our politics will we see a moral uplift among the people. Then Tammany rule in New York, as it exists now, will be impossible. It will be no more possible than reviving the robber barons of the Middle Ages.

Great is the danger to our country from the failure among our public men to live up to the eighth commandment, from the callousness in the public which permits such shortcomings. Yet it is not exaggeration to say that the danger is quite as great from those who year in and year out violate the ninth commandment by bearing false witness against the honest man, and who thereby degrade him and elevate the dishonest man until they are both on the same level. The public is quite as much harmed in the one case as in the other, by the one set of wrong-doers as by the other. “Liar” is just as ugly a word as “thief,” because it implies the presence of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more wide-spread and more pernicious. The difference between perjury and mendacity is not in the least one of morals or ethics. It is simply one of legal forms.

Our country faces great danger when public officials fail to obey the eighth commandment. The public’s indifference allows such failures. Yet it is no exaggeration to say that the danger is just as great from those who repeatedly violate the ninth commandment. They bear false witness against honest men. In doing so, they drag honest men down and raise dishonest men up until both stand on the same level. The public is harmed just as much by one group of wrongdoers as by the other. “Liar” is just as ugly a word as “thief,” because it implies a sin just as ugly. If a man lies under oath or persuades another person to do so, he is guilty under the law. He has committed perjury or induced someone else to commit it. Under the higher law, the great law of morality and righteousness, he is just as guilty if he lies in a newspaper or in a public speech instead of in court. And the harmful effects of his conduct are probably infinitely more widespread and damaging. The difference between perjury and lying has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It is simply a matter of legal form.

The same man may break both commandments, or one group of men may be tempted to break one and another group of men the other. In our civic life the worst offenders against the law of honesty owe no small part of their immunity to those who sin against the law by bearing false witness against their honest neighbors. The sin is, of course, peculiarly revolting when coupled with hypocrisy, when it is committed in the name of morality. Few politicians do as much harm as the newspaper editor, the clergyman, or the lay reformer who, day in and day out, by virulent and untruthful invective aimed at the upholders of honesty, weakens them for the benefit of the frankly vicious. We need fearless criticism of dishonest men, and of honest men on any point where they go wrong; but even more do we need criticism which shall be truthful both in what it says and in what it leaves unsaid—truthful in words and truthful in the impression it designs to leave upon the readers’ or hearers’ minds.

The same man may break both commandments. Or one group of men may be tempted to break one, and another group the other. In public life, the worst offenders against honesty owe much of their protection to those who falsely accuse their honest neighbors. This wrongdoing is especially revolting when it is hypocritical, when it is done in the name of morality. Few politicians do as much harm as the newspaper editor, clergyman, or citizen reformer who attacks honest people day after day. Their vicious, false attacks weaken the defenders of honesty, helping those who are openly corrupt. We need fearless criticism of dishonest men, and of honest men whenever they go wrong. But we need truthful criticism even more. It must be truthful in what it says and what it leaves unsaid. It must be truthful in its words and in the impression it aims to leave on readers or listeners.

We need absolute honesty in public life; and we shall not get it until we remember that truth-telling must go hand in hand with it, and that it is quite as important not to tell an untruth about a decent man as it is to tell the truth about one who is not decent.

We need absolute honesty in public life. But we will not get it until we remember that honesty must go hand in hand with telling the truth. It is just as important not to lie about a decent person as it is to tell the truth about a dishonest one.