Loyalty - What's It Good For? Part 2

Last week, a faithful reader and friend of Cog Dis, Reader Jane Doe, did a thought-provoking piece regarding Walkergate.

She is back with a follow up piece, which I reproduce here, unedited except for the diagram:

It appears that the Milwaukee County prosecutor has a treasure trove of secret e-mails that lays out its case very well, so it may have no need to make deals with the main players involved. But if there is room for deal-making, Walker’s aides and associates (and here I’m assuming there will be more than the three already discussed) will likely be advised to explore various legal stratagems. One can look to the prisoner’s dilemma for some guidance as to what they might do.

The prisoner’s dilemma goes something like this: Two conspirators are arrested and then separated. Each one is offered the following deal: 1) If you turn state’s evidence and the other guy doesn’t, he gets 10 years and you walk away free; 2) If you incriminate the other guy and he does the same, you each get 7 years; 3) If you don’t incriminate the other guy but he incriminates you, you get 10 years in prison; 4) if neither of you talk, you will both be held for questioning for 6 months.
(Eric Felton, Loyalty: The Vexing Virtue) Felton explains that it is strictly rational for each of the prisoners to talk and betray the other in order to reduce his sentence time, even though it is in both of the prisoners’ interest to keep their mouths shut (and then only get 6 months).

Of course, the prisoner’s dilemma as described doesn’t quite fit, since Walker couldn’t fink on Rindfleish in hopes of getting a better deal. Here the imbalance of the relationship is now on its head – no one would care what Walker has to offer about his underlings; if he has engaged in wrongdoing, he is the trophy. Given that there will be more players entering the drama, I wish someone would derive a new variant of the prisoner’s dilemma in this political context.

I’m just beginning to explore the dynamics and structure of organized crime, wondering if that would yield any insights into today’s power structures. It occurs to me that, under an organized crime structure, Walker has to be a pretty low level guy.

A common structure is:

Who would you put in each slot? I would assume that Walker is playing the role of a good lieutenant, overseeing the soldiers at the legislature. [In this light, can you imagine how peeved the bosses must be at Walker for apparently running such a smarmy, two-bit operation before he signed on to the big time?]

I know this is a bit much. But there’s a certain plausibility to it when you think of how often the players behave as obedient employees, rather than independent, politically astute individuals (think Lieutenant Prosser and The Good Soldier Gableman: recall that the chokehold episode was because Prosser was apoplectic that the collective bargaining decision wasn’t going to be released the day Fitzgerald demanded.)

There is fluidity in the structure that allows different deep pockets to enter the scene and set the apparatus into gear (think Gogebic); that fluidity is common in modern organized crime structures such as drug gangs where different interests come together to employ an existing apparatus for shared profit opportunity.

I’m not delusional enough to think that the John Doe investigation is going into anything more than Walker’s crimes, but thought of in this way, the dynamic may be less driven by Walker than one first thought. I’ve been thinking it’s frat-boy hero worship that explains the legislature’s slavishness, but maybe it’s not; maybe it’s just good soldiering.

Here’s the truth of any of it: while the left was thrilled by the rants of Keith Olbermann on cable and the premier of Air America radio, the right was methodically setting in place a well-oiled, hierarchical machine. And the machinery has been staggeringly effective. Just think of how much more effective it would be if any member of the hierarchy had an ounce of subtlety, humility or common sense?

A Walkergate Special: Loyalty - What Is It Good For

The following was sent to me by a friend of Cog Dis who wishes to be identified as Reader Jane Doe.  It appears unedited by me, with the exception that I added the photo:

Loyalty – What Is It Good For?

When Walker’s close aides - Kelly Rindfleisch, Darlene Wink, and Tim Russell -were indicted, I began to seriously ponder the issue of loyalty. People who make a living in the political world have to sign on, not to a team or an organization, but to an individual. And in signing on, they are pledging their loyalty to that individual. Even if a political staffer feels she is signing on to a team (of like-believers) and not just an individual politician, there is no question that the primary beneficiary of the team is the politician. And the staffer knows, going in, that the loyalty is strictly one way. No one really expects the politician to return loyalty in kind, at least not in public. After all, everyone is working toward the goals of only one person; from the outset, it is not a balanced relationship. But the staffer, nonetheless, commits her loyalty. But there are different shades of loyalty. What makes the difference between coattails loyalty and Kool-Aid loyalty?

A politician or office holder may hire two people to do similar work. Both come from the political world where networking and connections have led them to the job. Both commit their loyalty and both perform to expectation. But one individual’s loyalty is fundamentally tied up with advancing his own interests, whether it’s the paycheck or future opportunities. He works hard to advance the interests of his boss, but his loyalty is one of a professional nature. In contrast, the other’s loyalty transcends the professional expectation and becomes personal. Yes, he is interested in advancing his own interests, but, independent of that, he passionately seeks to advance the interests of his boss. In times of crisis (and I would say that a John Doe investigation is something of a crisis), loyalty becomes greatly tested. In short, does the aide spill the beans and protect himself if need be? Or does he fall on his sword for his boss/leader? One would think that the coattail loyalist is likely to protect himself, while the Kool-Aid loyalist is far more likely to struggle with the question of who to protect.

Loyalty plays a large role in today’s Republican circles in general and with Walker in particular. To be a member of the Republican/Walker club requires great fealty to the individuals in power and to their agenda. There is little dissension in their ranks because loyalty is a prerequisite to membership; independent or different-minded thinkers are not particularly welcome (or drawn to the party). There is a fraternity boy aspect of loyalty and conformity that has allowed an awful lot of people to hide behind groupthink and talking points.

In the case of Walker’s inner circle, their allegiance to Walker reflects if not a warped, then at least a very flexible code of ethics. For these people in particular, loyalty may be a much more powerful driving force than, say, abiding by the law or being true to one’s own sense of right and wrong. For some political operatives, loyalty may be their finest honed and most marketable skill.

Clearly, personalities and temperament have a lot to do with the differences between the two types of loyalists. One theory of motivation says we are motivated by achievement, affiliation or power. Those driven by achievement seek to excel and appreciate recognition, while those seeking affiliation seek relationships and want approval rather than recognition. [Interestingly, power seekers want neither recognition nor approval from others; they want compliance and agreement.] In the political realm, I would argue that the achievers tend to be the hired guns – they are there to run or participate in a winning campaign or administration. The affiliators are those who thrill at being in the inner circle, a member of a select group. These people are more than hired guns; they are the alter egos of the politician, the die-hard hangers on.

Kelly Rindfleisch appears to be a hired gun, running anybody’s and everybody’s fundraising. She doesn’t go way back with Walker (or at least solely with Walker). In that light, I suspect hers is a coattail loyalty. So can we expect her to make a deal with the prosecutor (assuming a deal is in the offing)? Keep in mind that a coattail loyalty could be quite strong even in times of crisis. The calculus may be self-interest, but self-interest extends not to just the current circumstances but to future considerations as well. Turning on Walker may leave her with few opportunities in the future if she becomes persona non grata in Republican circles. [Having said that, grants of immunity do not seem to taint operatives for long, with Rindfleisch being a case in point.] So her calculus may be more complicated if she believes her reputation as a trustworthy Republican operative is at stake.

I suspect that Darlene Wink is an affiliator and has more of the Kool-Aid loyalty in that she is a true Walker believer and something of a hanger on. Clearly Darlene was worrying about Darlene’s neck when she quickly promised cooperation with prosecutors, but even they are somewhat concerned with the extent of her cooperation given that they are waiting to sentence her only after they see what she delivers. Perhaps she doesn’t know much, so she is not risking the appearance of betrayal. Perhaps she can successfully stonewall and not deliver much. I am wondering though, whether, as an investigation drags on, the affiliators who are true believers may be the most susceptible to spilling the beans. As a group begins to splinter, groupthink crumbles (there is no group after all), so independent thinking may take hold. Affiliators are people who thrive on being members of a group, and once they realize that they can be easily thrown under the bus, they feel bitter and betrayed. Sure they recognized in concept that the loyalty was only one way, but in their heart of hearts they thought their relationship with the leader was special (and that their leader was special) and therefore they could expect protection. And of course, there is no real protection when the leader is at risk.

Tim Russell appears to be the uber Kool-Aid loyalist. He and Walker, in particular, have a very close fraternity-type bond, so it would be surprising if he turned on Walker. But at some point, when he is looking at years in prison, wouldn’t even he be motivated out of self-interest over Walker’s interest? Tim Russell’s past shows him to be a very ethically challenged person, so his calculus is probably impossible to understand or predict. Perhaps promises have been made to make him right after his prison term. Perhaps the bond is indeed so strong that he knows he will be made right after his prison term. But unlike Rindfleisch whose network (and future) extends to other Republicans, Russell’s bond is with Walker, so the calculus of his future may depend primarily on Walker’s future. Maybe he continues to see great things in Walker’s future and is willing to spend a decade or so in prison before rejoining Walker’s quest. Maybe he will take pride in being a martyr for Walker. Now that is Kool-Aid.

It is possible that Walker’s benefactors are assisting these aides in their legal defense, and maybe the aides are very grateful for such assistance. And maybe it’s enough to ensure loyalty. Such assistance does, in fact, reveal a degree of mutuality of loyalty (especially if you allow a great deal of self interest to be tied up with that return loyalty.) But the lawyers are surely advising these aides to act in their self-interest. Can they take the assistance and still spill the beans? In taking the assistance are their lips sealed?

Like many, I anxiously wait for the full details of the John Doe investigation to be revealed. It is not just a political drama being played out but a psychological one as well. To watch a secretive tight-knit group coming unraveled is stunning. Let’s just hope other secretive tight-knit groups become unraveled in the aftermath as well.