The New Normal

“Corruption, political favors, cover-ups, power grabs, following through on promises, right choices, dedicated to public service, fairness, a level playing field, local control, public policy, private lives, many years of serving the public good, and I’ve always made decisions that way,” are just a few of the words being used to defend decisions that are being made today. It depends on which side one sits when these words are spoken as to how they are received. Hearing the speech that Hosni Mubarak made the day before he was forced from office in Egypt, one would conclude that he was determined to outlast the calls for his resignation.

Criminals, politicians, notorious outlaws, public figures, preachers, and many others have all used their years in office or service as evidence that they tried to do the right thing when making decisions. This leads us to ask several questions: “What is the ‘new normal’ when it comes to making ethical decisions?” “What has happened to good old common horse sense?”  “Is the so-called “new normal” a situational ethic?” “Have we come to the place in every area of our society that the situation dictates how we will make our choices?” “Are we at a place where doing right because it is right, no longer is in consideration in decision making?” For example, a corrupt person making choices always makes sure they have control and the outcome will benefit them or their friends. The people who are corrupt can justify their decisions by saying they have always acted that way. Other people, when setting public policy, can shift the decision making to others, and thus relieve themselves from the blame if the wrong decision is made. In the “new normal” world, there has been a successful shift away from personal responsibility. The reason given for acting or responding in certain cases a set way is the environment in which one finds oneself. We hear people say, “He was hanging with the wrong crowd,” as a defense of wrong choices made by someone. Shifting blame for wrong choices is as old as time; Adam blamed Eve for offering him the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. History is filled with examples of those who have always been able to justify their actions by blaming someone else. Some notorious public figures have argued in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were innocent and had committed no wrong.

This column is not long enough to document the excuses that have been given by many accused criminals for their self-centered acts. An entertainer of another generation made popular the excuse when being caught in the wrong, “The Devil made me do it.” Our culture has learned that lesson well, and when all else fails we have the ready defense, “The Devil made me do it,” as our reason for failing. The hard question is: “Have we gone so far away from accepting personal responsibility that we cannot change?” We are confused today as to who sets the standard for right and wrong. We have more laws today than ever with more people finding ways to circumvent the laws to carry on with their corruption. In governments we have constitutions, charters, ethics codes, and laws that are designed to keep everyone in line with their decisions. We have come to the place where teams of legal experts line up to defend and interpret codes of conduct that have been established to make us accountable as decisions are made. As a student of history, one lesson we should have learned is that making hasty decisions will almost always come back to be seen as the wrong decision. Changing the code of conduct, charter, or constitution to achieve a current action should be carefully approached. The jury is still out regarding the type of democracy that will emerge from the revolution in Egypt. The current unrest in certain parts of our culture also calls for careful consideration before changes are made. We have found that today’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems. The long term big picture should be examined before a hasty change is made in how or who is to govern us. As a political observer, I caution that personal preference forced upon public policy based on personality differences, should be considered as to their long term effect on those who will be governed. In every election we need to know who we vote into office and how they plan to govern once they are elected.

Ray Newman February 2011 All Right Reserved