Where Ethics and Self-Interest Collide

In a long career teaching history to teenagers, I often found that using current events and popular culture to illustrate historical issues was an effective enhancement to understanding. You can tell them that history is important, but they generally aren’t convinced until you prove it by connecting it to the present. Sports analogies are among the references that come in pretty handy in this regard, so I’ll try it again here. 

Deshaun Watson is the starting quarterback for the Cleveland Browns (for the moment, at least, but we’ll get to that). He was a record-setting high school and college player, and the first-round draft pick of the Houston Texans in 2017. Over four years, he performed brilliantly for the Texans, getting them to the playoffs twice and setting more records. 

In 2021, Watson was hit with sexual misconduct allegations from at least 22 women, mostly massage therapists. The Texans organization, clearly displeased and embarrassed by Watson, kept him out of the entire 2021 season. They couldn’t morally justify playing him, but kept him under contract, in the belief that he was damaged goods, and they wouldn’t be able to trade him. 

Enter the long-suffering Cleveland Browns, desperate for a winning quarterback and sensing an opportunity, moral qualms be damned. They traded a bushel of draft picks — including three first-rounders — to Houston to get Watson, then gave him a five-year, $230-million contract, the largest guaranteed contract in the history of the NFL. 

At that moment, Browns fans were divided. Some were ecstatic, others not so much. Vocal opponents of the deal objected on moral grounds to bringing in a player with such off-field baggage. Many, though, happily stated that they didn’t care, as long as he wins. 

Well, he didn’t. He has played in only 20 of the Browns’ 69 games since, and when he has played, he’s been pretty terrible, and the team has, too. He started the first game of this NFL season and was again terrible in an embarrassing loss. Few Cleveland fans still support him, and a vast majority want him gone. 

The fair question here is this: What if Watson had played brilliantly in Cleveland? Would all those Browns faithful be cheering him now, despite the kind of person he is? One suspects they would, since winning is so important to them. It’s fair to assume that only a few who opposed him on moral grounds would still be demanding his ouster. And how would you characterize those holdouts? Principled? Heroic? Or traitors to the cause? 

Now come back with me to the acrimonious election of 1800. The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, tried and failed to reelect John Adams over Thomas Jefferson. But under the old electoral rules, the candidate with the most electoral votes would be president, and the second-most, vice president. Trouble began at the first ballot of the Electoral College, when Jefferson’s tally was — surprise — tied with that of his running mate, Aaron Burr. 

Allegations of plots abounded, with Jefferson’s supporters either accusing Burr of ambitiously trying to “steal” the presidency, or accusing the Federalists of manipulating the process to deny it to Jefferson. The Federalists, if they couldn’t have Adams, clearly preferred Burr — who seemed willing to be swayed to some of the Federalist positions on a variety of issues — so it was certainly a fair suspicion. All eyes turned to Hamilton. 

The election of Jefferson would be, to Hamilton, an unmitigated disaster. His allies counseled support for Burr. But Hamilton had long believed that Burr was a dishonest schemer whose personal ambition put his own interests above those of the country (a conviction that would later prove largely accurate). 

And so, without hesitation, Hamilton came out strongly against Burr, using all of his influence to save the country from an unprincipled man, even if it meant having to see Jefferson as president. After several more ballots, Jefferson finally prevailed. Historians still credit Hamilton for his moral determination and principled stand, putting the interests of his country over his own and those of his party. 

Hamilton’s choice appears even more heroic when you consider what he paid for it. Not only did the Federalists never again capture the presidency, but Hamilton would also be killed by Burr in a duel three years later. And though he was never prosecuted for killing Hamilton, Burr was put on trial for treason in an unrelated case, and lived the rest of his life in shame. One can only imagine what trials the young country was spared thanks to Hamilton’s courage. 

It seems almost quaint today, this value people like Hamilton put on honor over victory. Our politics — and other parts of our culture, like sports — have become so bitterly tribal that ethics have taken a back seat to winning. 

In such an environment, we must each examine our own attitudes on ethics. If our team were led by a truly terrible person, could we swallow our pride and withhold our support? Even if it meant losing? 

Politics and sports are two different animals, of course. One is, in the grand scheme of things, quite superficial, while the other is undeniably important. When they produce similar ethical choices, though, they can both be bellwethers of our ethics and our fortunes.

Jonathan Bill taught history in Peninsula schools for 32 years. He lives in Wauna.