The Ethical Record of the Bush Presidency

Abstract

Once a rarity, accusations of presidential ethical impropriety have become relatively commonplace since the downfall of Richard Nixon. In the case of Watergate, the evidence of wrongdoing was incontrovertible. Most instances are not so black-and-white, however. In the Iran-Contra scandal that beset Ronald Reagan, accusations of well-meaning naivety tempered more serious constitutional concerns regarding the privatization of foreign policy. In an era of moral relativism, defining ethics is fraught with difficulty. At its most basic, however, if ethics are understood as constituting a system of moral principles, this translates in the case of presidents to observance of the Constitution and the laws, to speak the truth, and to display integrity with regard to financial affairs and personal conduct. In contrast to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush was never accused of inappropriately seeking financial gain, marital infidelity, or sexual misconduct during his time in political office. Nevertheless, he came under greater attack for ethical shortcomings regarding the Constitution and the laws than any president since Nixon. Indeed, his critics accused him of advancing the imperial presidency to a level beyond anything contemplated by Nixon.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.¹

—Thomas Paine