In politics, shouldn't duty trump friendship?

This afternoon I heard NPR's broadcast follow-up of the story, Black Lawmakers Rethink Clinton Support. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was interviewed about some of the pressure being exerted on black members of Congress who support Hillary Clinton.

I was particularly struck by Rep. Cleaver's explanation of his support for Clinton. He explained that she is his friend, and then boiled it down to one statement:

"Loyalty trumps all," he said.

To illustrate this further, he talked about saving a seat for a fellow Congressman at the State of the Union address instead of giving it to a stranger - another black man - to demonstrate how race should not trump friendship. He also talked about joking with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Obama supporter, that it wasn't too late to throw his support to Clinton, and that maybe she'd find a place for him in the executive branch after she became president.

I don't really mind that Cleaver supports Hillary Clinton, even though I support Obama. I do mind that Rep. Cleaver proclaims "loyalty" as the top reason for his support, as opposed to something along the lines of, "I firmly believe she's the more qualified candidate for the job."

Where I'm from, people who distrust Democrats bring up issues like corruption and nepotism. When a Democratic Congressman goes on national radio and makes a big point of supporting Hillary Clinton because she is his friend, and talks about what her supporters stand to gain in terms of their personal careers - even in jest - he raises the corruption/nepotism warning flag. While public proclamations of loyalty surely win points with the Clintons, it does not do much to convince the voters that Democratic leaders stand for something other than their own careers (which is a lot of the criticism that I hear every day about Hillary Clinton).

See, we every day non-super non-delegate voters don't usually have the opportunity to become friends with presidential contenders. We have to vote based on principles, policy statements, voting records and the like. And I imagine we want our super delegates using the same criteria. In many ways, the greater the appearance of friendship among politicians, the greater the fear of corruption. And not without reason.

So much of modern politics is a language game, and our Democratic leaders really need to think carefully about using language that portrays them as being loyal for loyalty's sake. The language should reflect something along the lines of, "I support the candidate who I believe has the best plan for America."

It's nice if that candidate happens to be your friend, but if not, you have to stand for either your friend or the American people.

•  I too am troubled by Rep. Cleaver's remarks,

  and doubt if he would be able to get into the oval office to see his "friend" if she were elected. I would hope that every elected official would put their responsibility to the American people over their "friendships", but I suppose that is the idealist that remains inside me.

  I thought my idealism had been replaced long ago by skepticism and cynicism, Senator Obama has made me realize it was still there, buried deep, just waiting to be stirred again!

  by Blogvirgin on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

•  Remember when we heard about

  scandals of "If you don't support Bush you don't get a contract" here we go again.

  by Dreggas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM PDT

•  i see nothing wrong with loyalty...

  in 1992, William Jefferson (LA-02, he of the money in the freezer), was loyal to WJC.  He pretty much delivered Orleans Parish and Louisiana to Clinton.  In return, he was the "go-to" guy for most federal appointments in southern louisiana.  

  you rolls the dice, you takes your chances...if HRC wins, Cleaver will be one of the few black pols who stood with her.  If not, well, he'll have to work on new friends.

  by YatPundit on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM PDT

  •  Loyalty can be a valuable trait, but

    I think the point the diarist is making is that using loyalty as your stated primary criterion for supporting a politician reeks of lousy self-serving behavior. Sure, it may pay off in ways that means you can better serve your constituents, but machine politics does not guarantee that, and it brings a host of other bad habits with it.

    by hyperstation on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM PDT

    •  representatives HAVE to REPRESENT

      The fact that you are doing something that benefits
      yourself does not automatically make whatever-it-is
      you-are-doing immoral.

      I think the point the diarist is making is that using loyalty as your stated primary criterion for supporting a politician reeks of lousy self-serving behavior.

      Self-serving behavior is NOT automatically lousy.
      It is in fact morally superior to self-DAMAGING behavior,
      as is routinely practiced by white voters throughout
      the solid Republican south, in the name of racism.
      They vote Republican EVEN though it means they don't
      get health insurance.

      Normally, people elect a representative that they
      perceive as one of THEM, and in helping himself
      and people like himself, he NECESSARILY helps the
      people who elected him.  EVERYbody expects you to
      stand up for YOURSELF first and foremost.

      by ge0rge on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM PDT

      •  um, ok?

        But see, that wasn't my point.

        My point was about language, and how our leaders represent themselves to the public. My point was that Democrats are too often perceived as corrupt and SELF-serving to the detriment of PUBLIC service.

        That is in fact one of the most common criticisms I hear about Hillary Clinton - she is more concerned about her career and political aspirations than the welfare of the country (I'm not saying it's true, just that it's a perception).

        So to portray your motives for supporting Hillary as "loyalty" above other things (such as, say, policies, morals, experience, yadda yadda yadda) opens you to criticism of a similar nature.

        That doesn't help any Democrat - and provides some modest fuel for those seeking evidence that Democrats put their friends and their career aspirations before their voters.

        That was my point.

        by Last Mechanic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:29:10 PM PDT

•  That whole interview

  made me uncomfortable.  It all seemed illogical, disjointed, and then he started talking about Jackson, Jr. and I almost had to pull over.  I managed to keep the car on the road but I felt like I had to wash up when I got home.  

  by luckylizard on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM PDT