Who Is More Righteous--Stone-Throwers or Their Targets?

My old friend, Ed Rollins, has written a book about his life as a politician, a campaign manager and a member of Ronald Reagan’s White House staff. “Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms” comes out today, but already excerpts are running in selected publications across the country.

In his book, Rollins is hard on and critical of a number of persons he has worked for, worked with and dealt with over the years. He is, he insists, equally hard on himself.

His criticism of persons he has worked for as a campaign manager or consultant, including Michael Huffington, a one-time candidate for the U.S. Senate in California, and Ross Perot, the once and probably once again third party candidate for president, already has begun stirring up negative reactions in the world of politics--which is to be expected when a widely known political figure writes a book on which his publishers spend a lot of dollars promoting.

Criticism and controversy sells books, and Rollins’ publisher needs to sell many books to cover promotional costs plus its close to $1-million advance. Critics leaping to the bait already include political reporters and columnists and certain politicians, all of whom are above reproach in the area of unethical practices.

In an era when ethics are legislated and a president promises “the most ethical administration” in the nation’s history, Rollins’ critics, many of whom have pooh-poohed the current administration’s ethical failings, are bound to have a field day attacking his “lack of ethics.” Selective criticism, even though it may not be entirely ethical, is widely practiced in the political arena.

After all, officeholders and candidates, many of whom have their own ethical problems, have no desire to see their own weaknesses and foibles written about in the future. At the same time, it would be hard to find a reporter or pundit who would not gladly lap up and write for publication much of what is in Rollins’ book--if he had only told them instead of writing it himself.

Indeed, it is hard to understand how publications that are printing excerpts of Rollins’ book can be considered any more ethical than he is, since all they are doing is giving his charges and disclosures wider exposure at the expense of his victims. If they really think that Rollins was wrong in writing about these persons, why exacerbate the wrong?

But is Rollins wrong, is he unethical? Maybe yes, maybe no. Ethics, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder. As a rule, a reporter conning his way inside an organization and then writing about it is not considered unethical. Undercover agents worming their way inside a Mafia family for the purpose of getting information on its criminal activities are not considered unethical.

So why should Rollins be so considered? Well, for one thing, it will be said that he took his subjects’ money. But did taking their money bind him to a lifetime of silence? I don’t think so.

It seems to me that taking their money meant that while he worked for them, he should do his level best to elect them or failing that, do the right thing and quit. Beyond this, he owes them little or nothing, and so far nobody has charged that while he worked for either Huffington or Perot, Rollins did not do his best. In the case of Perot, when he found his best was not good enough, he quit.

Since Rollins is writing about public figures, does not the public have what many reporters call “the right to know” about the kind of persons Rollins’ candidates were? Who knows--they may want to run again, and Rollins’ book will be good source material for news media and opposition candidates alike.

Regardless, Rollins has written his book and now his targets and the political world will have a chance to react. And react they will--Huffington’s wife vows to take him to court--giving him even more publicity and selling even more of his books.

And “unethical” is the nicest name they will call him.