Empty Invitations, Meaningless Apologies, And 'Spending More Time With My Family' - The Prayer Book Of Washington Politics

Felicia Hancock was the head of an important Washington regulatory agency, wife of a Senator, and mother to a troubled son; so when she said that she was taking a leave of absence from her work to spend more time with Jon, those who knew the family agreed that it was about time.  The boy was a disciplinary problem, a drug abuser, and at th bottom of his class at Markus Arms, Washington's most prestigious private school.  

 

He was obviously crying out for attention and love, but his power couple parents had no time for him.  He was in the arms of the best educational system the Capital could provide, and they were paying good money for both a premier education and proper socially-grounded caretaking.

However, those in the power corridors knew better.  'Spending more time with your family' was the time-honored old chestnut of Washington, cover for a a career change that didn't quite fit the mold of character and career. Felicia Hancock was leaving her public service job for the private sector, a hundred thousand dollar move up and one which would leave the President without a functionary and loyalist in a key position.

Felicia gave the move time to settle and mature in the public's mind and offer a dash of credence to family concerns.  She was seen at an important vernissage with Jon and later at an intimate lunch at La Taverna di Firenze; but after one more outing, this time to a performance of Swan Lake by the Royal Ballet at the Kennedy Center, Jon was left alone and Felicia was in a New York corner office. 

There was nothing wrong with the frail and transparent cover story - impression is the currency of Washington - and while one could accuse her of abysmal parenting, there were hundreds of parents in the city which were far worse.  Yet her little white lie added to the venal and self-serving ethos of Washington.  In and of itself, it was a trifle, but when taken together with the thousands of white lies, deceptions, and treachery which make up the fabric of the capital, it was egregious.

The nature of sin has been discussed since Aquinas and debated throughout history, but the work of Johann Arbeiter on 'accretive sin' stands out as the most relevant here.  Felicia's innocuous little fib goes into the cauldron of deception, adds taste and spice to the stew, and makes it an eventual piece de resistance.

Yale Medical School professor Dr. Diane Komp in her book Anatomy of a Lie raises an interesting explanation to the now common phenomenon of lying in America.  Perhaps it is not the lying star figures who influence us, but we who influence them:

I began to wonder about the possibility that my own seemingly harmless white lies had an impact on the world, that maybe, instead of there being a trickle-down effect when people in exalted positions or in public life lie, there is a trickle-up effect," Komp explained in a recent interview. "In other words, maybe the cultural trend in lying begins with those of us who are not in positions of power, rather than the other way around. Maybe the 'trivial' lies that most of us tell without any real pricks on our conscience do matter.

She goes on to suggest why people tell lies:

To protect themselves from punishment or embarrassment, to protect their own fantasies about themselves, and to protect the feelings -- or, in extreme cases, the lives -- of others, she says. Regardless of the purpose, "the desire to assume control over another human heart is the basis of most human lies”.

She is not the first to consider lying, to wonder whether ‘white lies’ and ‘compassionate lies’ regardless of their seemingly honest purpose to alleviate pain and suffering, contribute to an erosion of moral rectitude and honesty.

A few decades before, Sisela Bok in her book Lying said:

A good man does not lie. It is this intuition which brings lying so naturally within the domain of things categorically wrong. Yet many lies do little if any harm, and some lies do real good. How are we to account for this stringent judgment on lying, particularly in face of the possible trivial, if not positively beneficial, consequences of lying?

Arbeiter does not disagree, but observes that Bok and Komp have provided only the basis for what has become a far more pernicious phenomenon - a society in which lying is taken for granted, an operational tool, a neutral factor with no moral implications whatsoever. 

'We all do it', we say, dismissing the more accretive nature of deception. Who takes 'Let's have lunch' seriously?  It it merely a social elision, a pleasant goodbye to an ordinary meeting, a bit of window dressing and sparkling Christmas reindeer doing no harm; but each and every insincere invitation adds to this penumbra of moral uncertainty. 

Apologies are not what they seem.  They can be put-downs, timid assertions of right, and conflict avoidance; but most of all they are venal, self-serving gestures to deflect criticism.  Apologies without contrition are meaningless. Men are good at saying sorry to their wives without the slightest intention of reforming their behavior. Children know that parents smile at even the most insincere expression of regret; and politicians, understanding that good Christian Americans want to forgive, apologize for everything.

It is hard these days to avoid hearing apologies. Politicians have the most smarmy and indefensible affairs and when finally outed simply apologize.  “I am sorry that my actions have caused so much hurt and pain to my family, friends and colleagues”, they say, careful never to say they are sorry for the act itself. They are as adept at twisting apologies for their own ends as the English.   I didn’t do anything wrong, said Newt Gingrich after admitting infidelities while his wife was being treated for cancer.

Let's remember, Newt famously dumped wife #1 for wife #2 while wife #1 was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. As in literally went to the hospital to present her with divorce papers while she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer.

He eventually dumped wife #2 for wife #3 shortly after wife #2 was diagnosed with MS back in 1999. And he was having the affair on wife #2 with wife #3 while he was turning the country upside down trying to drive Bill Clinton from office over his affair with Monica Lewinsky

John Edwards was no different. When Edwards first admitted to the affair, he stated that Elizabeth was in remission from breast cancer. However, it became clear that the affair was still ongoing, even after he and his wife made a joint announcement that her cancer had returned and was found to be incurable. Elizabeth Edwards died on December 7, 2010. 

Yes, he was philandering while his wife was dying.  Yes, he lied to her; and yes, he bribed an underling to say he was the father of Edwards’ illegitimate child; but he never apologized for wrong-doing, just for the hurt that he caused:

Edwards wrote in a statement, “It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me….To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry.”

Mark Sanford, the former governor of South Carolina who lied to everyone about his affair and told the press that he was going hiking on the Appalachian Trail when he actually was headed to Buenos Aires to be with his firecracker, is now back in office as a Representative to the Congress of the United States. He apologized - abject apologies not for his dereliction of office, cheating on his wife, or for blatant lies, but for causing hurt and pain. 

Politicians know that with a heartfelt apology to the public, they will be forgiven.  Perhaps it is that Christian thing about forgiveness which lies at the bottom of this credulous attitude; or perhaps a refusal to admit a mistake in their vote; but whatever the reason one meaningless apology after another comes down from podium and pulpit. 

Those who had taken Felicia Hancock at her word were chagrinned when they learned the truth.  They had misread the most common meme in Washington and actually believed that the woman had some maternal concern for a wayward child.  They had been lied to and deceived.  When put in the perspective of Washington politics it might be understandable, but Felicia's like had disturbed a moral order.  Looking after one's children was paramount for these credulous parents and making it into a pretty excuse for self-centered ambition was a slap in the face. 

Lying is endemic, and so are empty invitations and false apologies.  The world runs on minor deceptions, but when they are mixed together in a crucible, a No Exit world of amorality, they become bits of the social DNA, indelible chromosomes.  The world of perception is stood on its head.  One assumes first and foremost that the person speaking is lying.  Once the lie is disaggregated and disassembled and some truth is found within it,  perception can be adjusted.  Never the other way around. 

Jon is only the ancillary facet of this discussion.  Nobody really cared what happened to him, a work-related injury in Washington politics.  As it turns out, however, he learned his lesson well and his mother's glibness and easy with the truth stood him in good stead on Wall Street.  Lying pays dividends there just as it does in politics.