ETHICS IS BEING ABOVEBOARD

If we are experiencing mixed feelings about the political demise of Jim Wright and Tony Coelho, it may be because we are torn between two conflicting, thoroughly American notions.

The first is that personal sacrifice is noble; the second, that if you have a special talent, a good idea or a willingness to work hard, you have a right -- almost a duty -- to translate it into fame, fortune and the other earmarks of success.

The first is the reason we admire people like Ralph Nader, Mitch Snyder and Cesar Chavez. The second is the reason that our admiration for these paragons seldom translates into emulation.

We may marvel at their willingness to forgo riches in the interest of service, but we wouldn't want our daughters to marry one.

On the one hand, we claim to admire self-denial. On the other, we are fond of demanding, "If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?"

Former speaker Tip O'Neill put the conflict in focus the other day when, speaking in defense of his fallen successor, he wondered whether we are approaching a time when only the dim-witted children of the rich will qualify for public service. His double-barreled suggestion was that only those who are already rich can afford to meet the emerging ethical standards for public service and that, of these, only those too dim to take over the family business could be interested.

Is it as bad as all that? There can be no doubt that our notions of ethical behavior are changing. We didn't count it the least bit strange that Lyndon Johnson could leave the presidency a millionaire, after a lifetime as a public servant or that Gerald Ford, just another middle-class guy before his accidental accession to the presidency, should now make his home among the certifiably rich in Palm Springs.

I'm not suggesting that these former presidents earned their money unethically. The point is that it never occurred to us to question its source.

All that is changing. Coelho tried to make some money in junk bonds and had to step down as Democratic whip. Wright, who tried to exploit a loophole in the law that put a limit on honoraria, is leaving the House in disgrace.

Are the new standards too strict? Is O'Neill correct in predicting a future in which only rich public servants can afford the luxury of political virtue?

As he told ABC-TV's Ted Koppel, no one thinks it unethical for a taxpayer to take advantage of a loophole to reduce his tax liability. All we demand is that he not violate the law. Why should a public servant be different? If the law says a member of Congress can earn only so much from public speaking but places no limit on earnings from book royalties, why should Wright be pilloried for cutting an unusually advantageous deal on his book?

Maybe the key difference is this: the taxpayer who exploits the provisions of the tax code doesn't try to keep knowledge of the fact from the Internal Revenue Service. He is in trouble only if the loophole he thought was there turns out not to be.

But the public servant who exploits the margins of the law to enrich himself, no matter how technically legal the exploitation might be, can still find himself accused of an ethical breach.

Is that unfair? Maybe it is. The public servant who violates the law ought to go to jail. Whether he has violated some nebulous ethical standard should be a matter between him and those who put him in office. As with legal exploitation of the tax code, the test ought to be whether the exploiter is willing to have his exploitation made public.

Most of the complaints that the emerging ethical standards are too strict have to do with the increasing likelihood that the public will find out what is going on. If that is the problem, then the solution is not to enlist political opponents and the media in a conspiracy to keep the dealings secret but to avoid deals the public exposure of which would mean political disgrace.

It may be true, as someone once said, that the real test of a person's character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.

But the best assurance of ethical behavior may be to cultivate the expectation that he will.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.