Truth and loyalty are good in themselves, but what happens when there is a conflict between the two?
Recent events in Washington have thrown this issue into sharp relief. No doubt the war over Kosovo will provide more opportunities for grappling with the dilemma, as sources leak doubts over the wisdom of the initial battle plan, and others come forward to counter their allegations.
Among the most outspoken proponents of loyalty as the supreme virtue has been Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist who has advocated the widespread use of American power in a Sunday Magazine essay illustrated with a cover photo of a red, white, and blue fist (that appears to reflect Administration thinking). In his daily column Friedman attacked Pentagon critics of the Administration for leaking to the press, claiming such sniping may endanger the war effort.
But if there are problems with the initial plan, certainly it would be better to voice objections early so that they might be corrected, rather than to wait until tragedy strikes. If truth conflicts with loyalty, might not one calculate the potential harm from keeping silent as equal or greater than speaking out?
This type of moral calculation appears to reprise themes of the Christopher Hitchens-Sidney Blumenthal dispute, or the recent debate over an honorary Oscar for Elia Kazan. Hitchens and Kazan chose to speak truth because they felt that silence would cause more harm. Others felt that loyalty to political comrades was more important.
What is actually at work is a conflict between two deep-seated syndromes, rooted in different approaches to life. Jane Jacobs described them as the "guardian" and "trading" syndromes in her book Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics.
The guardian syndrome is based on agricultural society and the control of land. The guardian is a member of an elite, originally aristocratic, clan. In exchange for organizing the protection of land and population, the lord provides protection and sustenance. Because he is in a position of trust compared to his serfs, according to his code he must "lie for the sake of the task". For his status is dependent on being seen as superior to the mass. This syndrome is found when police forces maintain the "Blue Line" of silence, when military organizations cover-up to protect officers against charges, or when parents lie to protect their children from unpleasant realities of life. Information is tightly controlled as a feature of this heirarchical society. But in exchange, the aristocratic code demands self-control.
The latter syndrome is based on trade. The price system is one example where information is needed to establish the value of a commodity. Since traders deal with strangers, their word must be their bond for providing credit and merchandise on time and to the right customer. For the trader, "honesty is the best policy" or customers will not come back. The marketplace enforces the rules, allowing a more carefree personal life for the trader than the guardian.
When there is a hybrid between the two systems, problems can result. For example, a commercial newspaper which prints only the government line will lose its credibility, and possibly its circulation and advertising. Or a police force which permits bribery will become an arm of the criminal element. To Jacobs the two syndromes must be kept separate.
Applying Jacobs' analysis gives a useful tool for evaluating the conflict between truth and loyalty. Yes, a government official should be loyal, but in America, the loyalty must be to the Constitution of the United States. The President is a temporary servant of the people, who are the aristocracy of the United States. Therefore, while an occasional lie for the sake of the task might be tolerated, a sustained use of lies to advance personal self-interest over the best interests of the nation would demand exposure by the code of the guardian syndrome. Likewise, a reporter for a commercial newspaper who chose not to report the truth out of a political or personal loyalty would betray his obligations under the trading syndrome.
How these evaluations might be conducted in individual circumstances will, of course, depend on the consciousness and perceptions of those involved. But one can get some glimmer that a policy based on a lie, or series of lies, will be more difficult to achieve than one grounded in reality.
Therefore, under Jacobs system of survival, there need not be loyalty to a lie, even among guardians, if the lies damage the people they are designed to protect and defend. If that is the judgement of those leaking criticism of the Kosovo mission to the press, they are acting out of patriotic motivations and true to their obligations. The specific facts of their complaints must be evaluated to determine whether leaks or silence in a specific case better serve the public good.
Alistair Cooke's Letter From America (BBC)