 |
Is Carville Right to Place Loyalty First? |
 |
I agree with Mike Lux's conclusion that James Carville is wrong to describe loyalty as a "cardinal virtue", but I would take Lux's argument one step further. Carville's focus on loyalty first is misplaced and reminds me of what is wrong with the current presidential administration.
Carville claims that "[n]owhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in as in Washington."Â Actually, loyalty has had a pretty good run for the last seven years in Washington, although the results have not been so good.
The Bush administration has made loyalty the coin of the realm, as another former Clinton insider has observed. Bush has surrounded himself with yes men and women–the slogan "you're either with us, or you're against us" doesn't only apply to those who wish the U.S. harm. Bush rewards and stands by those who stand by him (like Alberto Gonzales) and he reserves a special fury for those who cross him.
Bush's example shows us that blind loyalty can be pernicious. In the context of a presidential administration, it encourages people to excuse misconduct and to confuse personal loyalty with duty.
Loyalty has to be earned, and it can be lost. A president who breaks the law and scorns the Constitution does not deserve loyalty.  Sometimes an act that may be disloyal to the president demonstrates real integrity.
Carville's focus on loyalty first reminds me of exactly what is wrong with the current administration. I think we are better served by men and women who are loyal to the Constitution above all.  I'm not saying that there's no place for loyalty, but it's not a trump card. Focusing on personal loyalty muddies the waters and can make for bad decisions. It's not a pretty sight when people misplace their priorities in this area.
