Forfeiting our own moral authority

From today's Oregonian-Steve Duin writes about the Police Chief. When I find an item like this that better expresses my feelings then I will re-produce it rather than attempting to paraphrase the ideas.

Three weeks. Three excruciating weeks.
That's how long Portland Mayor Tom Potter spent listening to the pragmatists, the apologists and his own conscience.
Before he was cornered last Thursday by the press, that's how long Potter was allowed to ponder the more challenging questions raised by those who would excuse the conduct of his police chief: When did we decide to lower the bar?
When did we stop caring about holding people to a higher standard?
When was accountability eliminated from the list of demands we submit to our public servants and community leaders?
When did we resign ourselves to mediocrity?
When did we give up?
These questions have been around a lot longer than the latest sex scandal. I ask them each time President Bush tries to articulate a thoughtful argument, each time Gov. Ted Kulongoski talks about a second term, each time I remember Karen Minnis is speaker of the Oregon House.
Whatever happened to quality?
When did we drop the bar so low that anyone could crawl over it?
But the Foxworth case is particularly raw, a fresh reminder that shame and competence have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Three weeks -- now almost four -- after he received indigestible evidence that his police chief has the appetites and discretion of a porn star, Mayor Tom Potter remains paralyzed as to how to proceed.
Peering into the utter abyss of Foxworth's moral authority, the mayor doesn't blink. Asked whether the chief is still capable of running a bureau that's now laughing in his face rather than smirking behind his back, Potter said, "As of today, Chief Foxworth is doing what I have asked him to do. If that were to change in the future, if he was unable to carry out his duties, then I would reconsider my decision."
Moments later, the mayor reflected on the public's disdain for city government: "Of course, I worry, but there's nothing I can say. What I can try to do is behave in a manner that restores trust in government. I try to do the right things for the right reasons. I don't make political decisions."
Oh, really? What decisions do you make then?
Is there really some confusion about the nature of Foxworth's duty? His primary responsibility is to represent the best in us. That's part of the bargain when we pay his salary, outfit his office, fund his retirement and forgive him his personal cellular calls.
He failed. Trust is lost when someone pretends not to notice or professes not to care.
I don't know that Derrick Foxworth's failure is all that egregious when compared with the failure to safeguard this country's security or its long-term interests in the Middle East; the inability to fund Oregon schools; or the refusal to take up the mantle of leadership.
But when we shrug, when we apologize for him, when we act as if we're embarrassed to expect something more from the man who leads the force, the fragile bar -- of our standards and our discourse -- drops that much closer to rock bottom.
Does anyone still think that matters? I'm not nostalgic about politics. I appreciate that the public-service arena has long been a refuge for con artists, opportunists and frontmen for the special interests that forever angle for an unfair advantage.
But when did we decide we had no choice but to surrender to those cynical clowns?
When did we stop pondering how high we could aim and start worrying about how low we could go?
When did we forfeit our own moral authority, and the will to say, "Enough"?
If the revelations of the past week don't force the mayor and the rest of us to answer those questions now, I hesitate to contemplate the sordid scandal that will.


Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 steveduin@news.oregonian.com www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/papertrail