Choosing ethical consistency over reform outcomes?

This morning, Tom Daschole abruptly announced his withdrawl from consideration as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, amidst intense scrutiny over his over $120,000 backlogged taxes, employment by (and possible political endorsement of) a lobbying company that has health care clients, and borderline lobbying activities that are potentially problematic for an Obama administration that promised to clean up Washington. (Click to see the CNN and New York Times news articles, as well as the Time news analysis.)

As a politics and health care enthusiast, I found myself unable to shake this news. On the one hand, I find myself outraged and defeated by the news of yet another Obama nominee with a less-than-spectacular financial track record. On the other, Daschle's experience in public and private health care sectors, unique position of leadership in both, and familiarity with the political and informational landscape of America's health care system made him a clear choice. It's no wonder that Obama had no back-up and is now scrambling to come up with another name. (Tangent alert: It's easy to fixate quickly on his involvement in both the policy and business of health care, to assume that he "sold out" his public service and political insider experience for personal gain. However, given my current position in a large consulting firm, it's clear that I not only disagree with this position, but wholeheartedly believe that successful health care reform must address the perspectives of all stakeholders, public and private, provider and payer, advocate and pundit, etc.. Otherwise, we're doomed to repeat the failure of Hilary Clinton's health care reform in the 90's, and really just about every other effor to change the status quo since the beginning of the centure. End of tangent.)

The question is - is this a case of the perfect getting in the way of the good (even with his imperfect record, Daschle has the seemingly magical combination of knowledge and experience across sectors to lead the rescuing effort of our failing health care system), or does Daschle's oversight constitute an ethical violation serious enough to trump whatever good he might have been able to do as head of DHHS (and thus he was wise to withdraw voluntarily)? The former paints the debate into a matter of pragmatism, while the latter makes it into one of ethics and public trust. Or maybe these views are not as clearly dycotomized as I'm making it out to be. Are we seriously to believe that Daschle overlooked the driving serivces and private consulting fees he received as part of his income? Are we to accept the fact that he never disclosed his tax problems to the Obama administration, even after being nominated? Can we still stand behind his efforts to create a National Health Board and trust in his upholding the public interest, knowing that he participated in lobbying-esque activities while not technically registered as a lobbyist? The answers seem to suggest that without ethical consistency (the kind that is visible to the public anyway, but that's my cynical side speaking), a political leader loses the intangible capital of trust that eventually drives through change.

Which, if you think about it, is not a very difficult concept to grasp for us ordinary people...