Government

Profiles In Cowardice

Columnist Mark Herrmann thinks about presidents modeling behavior, whether it’s masks in 2020 or telling the truth under oath in the late 1990s.

By  
on

We have a president spewing insanity to the world: He’s spewing wild conspiracy theories about the election that have no basis in fact.

Republicans in Congress have refused to condemn this behavior, and many have affirmatively supported it.

Why?

Because they’re afraid they’ll be on the receiving end of a nasty tweet.

Honest to God: We have soldiers around the world risking injury or death to defend America.

And Republican senators are afraid of how they might be hurt by a tweet?

This is breathtaking.

Sponsored

Suppose the very worst happens: A nasty tweet hits its mark. Egad! Instead of being Senator Jarndyce, you lose your election and become former Senator Jarndyce. You retire into serving on a couple of corporate boards and giving speeches for 10 or 20 grand a pop. Is that so terrible?

What are you risking?

Soldiers risk life and limb; you risk being forced into a cushy next phase of your life.

I feel the same way about presidents serving as role models.

When an epidemic hits the United States, and literally thousands of lives could be saved by wearing a mask, the president should wear a mask. I don’t care if a mask is a little uncomfortable or could be turned into a political point: On the one side of the scale is a little discomfort or a political point; on the other side is literally tens of thousands of lives. Which side weighs more?

Sponsored

Lest you fear I’m being terribly partisan, let me be bipartisan in my criticism:  When President Bill Clinton is asked under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he must tell the truth.  He must model good behavior for all Americans.  (There’s a distinction here between committing perjury and being impeached for perjury. I’m saying only that Clinton should not have committed perjury; reasonable minds could differ over whether perjury was sufficient to justify impeachment.)

As a litigator, I spent decades sternly instructing people that they had to tell the truth under oath. I was occasionally talking to people at risk of losing their jobs if they told the truth. But I told middle-level managers, likely to be fired if they told the truth, that they were obliged to tell the truth. They were under oath.

President Clinton was risking only impeachment: If he told the truth, he might lose a vote in the Senate. He’d be forced into being a former president, thus serving on more prominent boards than the former senators and giving speeches for a hundred grand a pop. A middle-level manager, with kids in school and a mortgage to pay, is at serious risk if he tells the truth; a president is not.

One could, of course, also argue this as a matter of threat rather than principle: When you take an oath to tell the truth, you pledge your immortal soul that you will not lie. At risk of eternal damnation, what is your response to the following question?

I’m not counting on posthumous retribution for our pusillanimous or perjurious politicians.

But I wouldn’t mind a little karma.

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Topics

, ,