"First They Came for the Socialists..."
By FASPE Chair David Goldman
I write having spent the day at the home and church of Martin Niemöller.
I recently listened to an Anderson Cooper podcast (All There Is) in which he discussed grief with Irene Weiss, a survivor of Auschwitz. On the question of how to explain her experience, she reflected: “The instinct to kill is so strong in man, all he needs is permission from society. And as soon as he's given permission, he's the most dangerous animal.” I took that as an invitation to explore not just killing but “bad” behavior generally. So, what does permission mean?
We see a photo of an Israeli soldier taking an axe to a crucifix. Who gave him that permission?
We hear the president of the United States threatening to destroy a civilization. Who gave him that permission—both to destroy but also even to speak like that?
We read of constant denials of science from those in power. Who gave them that permission?
We hear the American secretary of defense invoking God’s support for America’s troops in Iran. Did he speak with God?
We read of levels of economic corruption that seem unprecedented in their breadth. Who gave this permission?
We hear constant mendacity, we observe unconstrained perfidy, from those in power. Who gave them permission?
Isn’t the answer that no one is granting permission? Instead, we humans are prone to bad behavior, or, if not prone, we are open to, or cleverly rationalize, bad behavior based on our own concepts of self-interest (or the interest of our “group”). Are these tendencies not sometimes accommodated or encouraged by the surrounding culture?
Whether my reaction is cynical, tinged with an element of nihilism, what is the answer? How do we deal with what certainly seems a confluence of behavior that threatens civil society? Or, put differently, how do we withdraw the permission that seems to have been assumed by the human condition?
Society has granted leadership, has invested authority, not just to elected leaders (or unelected tyrants). We have granted some people leadership, embodied by symbols of authority like clerical collars and the white coats of our doctors through the constitutional and architectural power of courts and the economic authority of c-suites, through the mere designation of civil service to those responsible for ensuring the operation of a civil society. It is they, those whom we designate as the professionals, who have the power and responsibility to withdraw the permission that the human condition grants to bad actors.
How does that play out?
- For us mere mortals, those who are not invested with professional authority, we are served by professionals. We hire professionals; we buy products from professionals; we buy newspapers or select websites; we select our places of worship and education. We have the right and the ability to act with our choices and to speak with our feet. We are not powerless. We must demand ethical leadership or withdraw support.
- For us professionals—say or do something in your professional capacity. Search for methods to withdraw permission for bad behavior however you can. For example, by explaining the true science to your patients, by refusing to advocate for clients who want your assistance in their bad (or futile) acts, by speaking ethics from the pulpit, or by not delegating ethical behavior to compliance.
- For powerful professional organizations and institutions—try something novel: work collectively even with your competitors. A ban on one media giant is an attack on all. An executive order against one law firm is an attack on all. White Christian Nationalism is an affront to all religious institutions. Sowing distrust on one set of treatments or one category of doctors promotes distrust in all of medicine. Dividing, even in the interest of short-term economic profit or other perceived benefit, is just that: short term!
It is not hyperbole or false analogizing to recall Niemöller’s regretful poetic admission (“First they came for the Socialists…"). His is not a mere apology for his initial complicity with the Nazis. His is not a mere reflection on the ultimate path from Nazi political rhetoric to genocide. His is not a commentary on fascism or genocide or history. It must not be read as feel-good poetry of the past that means nothing to us today. It is an admonition to all of us now and for the future. We all must be bulwarks against the human condition. We must all find a path to withdraw the permission that the human condition and our current culture have made available to today’s bad actors. It is a demand of our professionals and of the rest of us.
If I may even turn capitalistic—it is a direction to us all. We must take ownership of our future.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.
Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.