This week’s Scooter Libby episode offers a clear lesson in the principle of consistency applied to politics and why it is that 40% of Americans are looking to an alternative to Democrats or Republicans. (That percentage might be even higher after this week.)

Here’s what I mean by consistency. When you’re away from home, isn’t there a particular chain of motels or eating franchises you are more likely to choose? The likely answer is yes. Why? Because as human beings we like new things but we like to temper those new experiences with familiarity. With a motel, for example, you know that if you stay at a certain franchise chain that you can expect to get the amenities you need at the level of comfort you’re willing to pay for. You don’t like surprises in your travel lodging, therefore the trust bond is really damaged if one of the chain motels doesn’t perform to expectations. Here’s how this plays out politically.

Most people don’t really have a political philosophy they’ve thought through. Instead, people have an affiliation with one party or the other. In many ways, this affiliation is very similar to the ones people have to sports teams. Sometimes their affiliation is based on a single issue (abortion, illegal immigration) and sometimes on other groupings. Examples include your parents’ political choice, union membership, or your profession. This affiliation manifests itself in a common attitude: Everything my team does is right. Everything your team does is wrong. A variation on that theme is this: Look at what your team does. How pathetic. My team would never do that. In other words, you have the expectation that your team will behave consistently in adversity. And if your team does commit those kind of errors, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can rightly expect your friends to criticize your team and you have no excuse or comebacks.

In sports, this plays out as my team turns double plays without errors, does not commit stupid fouls or can simply be counted on not to commit some other error in fundamental technique or procedure appropriate to the sport. In politics, the equivalent of this is we expect our elected officials not to abuse their offices by using its power to engage in criminal activity and then claiming executive privilege or publicly proclaiming opposition to questionable activity and then being exposed as a practitioner of that type of behavior.

What the Scooter Libby incident with its comparisons to former President Clinton’s impeachments and after the 2000 election pardons (as well as recent scandals with Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, and Sandy Berger, among others) proves is that no one party has a lock on either purity or depravity. Further, the only consistency in their behavior is the inconsistent application of ethics. If my side does it, it’s OK. If your side does it, it’s wrong. Americans are looking for candidates and political parties who have the other kind of consistency. Those candidates and parties believe in ethical behavior in the first place that does not require commutations and pardons. And Americans increasingly believe they cannot get that behavior from the two major parties.

For an excellent discussion and examination of some individual politicians’ rhetoric vs. their behavior, see the following link. Bob Geiger makes some excellent points.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/25-gop-senators-who-voted-guilty-twice.html