The utility of goodness

The death of, and tributes to, Ted Kennedy raise an interesting question about the relationship between individual moral worth and public service. By all accounts, the youngest Kennedy boy, like his older brothers, inherited many of the personality defects of his obnoxious father — particularly the predatory attitude towards women. In Chappaquiddick, Teddy displayed another kind of moral flaw, by not trying to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne, by fleeing the scene without reporting the accident and (almost certainly) by using family money to buy the silence of the girl’s family. (Echoes here of how wealth had also bought absolution from the sin of cheating in a Harvard exam.)

On the other hand, it’s clear that Ted Kennedy was, as a legislator, often on the side of the angels. The Economist, not exactly a bleeding heart liberal journal, described him as “one hell of a Senator”, full of “passion and energy and a palpable desire to comfort the afflicted”. He agitated for civil rights for blacks and was largely responsible for the Voting Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Freedom of Information Act. He campaigned for an end to the war in Vietnam, for stricter safety rules at work and for sanctions against apartheid. Almost alone among Senators, he opposed the Iraq war from the start and was a lifelong campaigner for universal health care.

This is a great record. And yet it is the record of a morally flawed man. Compare it with the political legacy of, say, Tony Blair who — in his personal life at least — seems a model of moral rectitude. And yet he took the country to war on false pretences, quashed the Serious Fraud’s Office’s investigation into BAE Systems’s relations with prominent Saudi princes and passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act — and a good deal of other illiberal and intrusive statutes.

It’s worth remembering this when the UK print media have one of their periodic feeding frenzies about the private lives of politicians. The fact that someone cheats on their spouse may well be distasteful, but does it really tell us anything about their suitability for public office? Ted Kennedy (or for that matter Jack or Bobby) wouldn’t have passed even a cursory test for moral probity. And yet they did a lot of good. In fact you could argue that, of all the Kennedy boys, Ted achieved the most and in that sense was the greatest of them.

How things change

Spotted in a secondhand bookshop the other day. Consists entirely of pages like this:

I guess there was once a market for this kind of aid. Just as there was for tables of logarithms.

En passant: Warne was Beatrix Potter’s publisher. If this is an example of the sort of stuff they published, no wonder they were bemused when she showed up with Peter Rabbit.

Quote of the day

Michael Foley on why corporations are having such problems with social media.

The biggest problem facing social media is impatience with it. There are a lot of big brands dedicating resources to social media lately because it is the new “bright shiny thing.” I’m worried that these big brands may feel the need to shut down these social media business experiments if they don’t see results (meaning big revenue) in time for the next quarterly earnings report. It takes time to build relationships and develop trust, especially if you have been neglecting your customers for a long time (and most brands have). They’re already suspicious of you because you’re selling something. Real relationships aren’t built on the salesman’s need to move product on deadline. They are built on a mutual exchange of value over time. Don’t think of your social media presence as an experiment, but instead think of it as an investment so that you can obtain social capital in the long term.

[Source.]