Former Labor Secretary-designee Linda Chavez asked George W. Bush to withdraw her name for consideration for the Cabinet position because she said she had become "a distraction." Her acknowledgment that she had housed an undocumented person and paid her thousands of dollars for chores and odd jobs raised eyebrows, especially after "Nannygate" incidents forced both Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood to withdraw their names from consideration as members of President Clinton’s cabinet. Chavez was hardly silent on when those women were excoriated for having undocumented workers taking care of their children, and for failing to pay taxes on their wages. Now, her words have come back to haunt her. That's called "what goes around comes around," not the politics of personal destruction.

Linda Chavez is a Washington insider and she is, as many say, a "very nice woman." She and I have faced on television panels, and while neither of us give the other a break, when the camera isn't rolling I've found her to be engaging, personable, and friendly. I don’t find it difficult to believe that she has helped people, opening both her home and her wallet to them when they were needy. But I also find it difficult to believe that she didn't know that these situations should be disclosed as part of the vetting process. If anyone engaged in the politics of personal destruction, it was Chavez destroying herself when she (allegedly) went to neighbors and said she hoped her relationship with Marta Mercado did not come out. One of the first rules of the vetting process is "tell all." Get the worse out there. Nobody likes surprises, least of all a President-elect that ought to be walking on eggshells already.

For all Chavez’ compassion, she also acknowledged that she knew Marta Mercado was undocumented, and she still asked her neighbors to provide the woman with work. While compassionate, this is also blatantly illegal. Did she tell her neighbors about Ms. Mercado’s legal status? And does she see the connection between concern about her actions and concerts about the ways she might "look the other way" in her role as Secretary of Labor. To be sure, there is fuzziness in some of the work rules that exist, especially with our "new tech" economy blurring the definition of work. More and more Americans work in temporary or part time jobs, many doing all or part of their work "under the table" to avoid Uncle Same. It’s a reality, but also an illegality. Chavez, frankly, knows better.

She also ought to know better than to parade the people she helped in front of the camera to prove that she is a compassionate person. For all the good things her friends and beneficiaries had to say about her, I was saddened that they had to be used in a cynical Washington move to "show" Linda Chavez in a positive light. The fact is that most Americans give, and many do so in ways that are not always visible. My upbringing suggests that crowing about your good deeds somehow diminishes them. I was saddened that Chavez diminished her dignity, and that of her friends, by putting on a show and tell press conference that touted her charity.

Further, in touting her charity, Chavez was also trumpeting her ideology. No big government advocate, her implicit message was that private charity can do the job. One of her defenders said that she used her own money "instead of tax dollars" to help people. The fact is that millions of Americans use their own money to contribute billions of dollars to charity and also to directly help people. But the social service infrastructure is there when private charity fails and, often, because private charity is not enough to transform lives. Indeed, the potential for exploitation is often present when people are being provided housing in exchange for labor. In the early days of the Gingrich Congress (the one that put a Contract on America), several proposals were introduced to circumvent wage and hour laws. People could work free so that they could get experience in some industries. They could work at a sub-minimum "training" wage. While Chavez actions appear to be well meaning, in other cases there could be a thin line between private charity and labor exploitation. That's why we have government regulation.

I’m sorry that Linda Chavez withdrew herself from consideration for Secretary of Labor. I was looking forward to her confirmation hearings, and the exchange she would have with a number of pro-labor Senators who would have questioned her on her views on the minimum wage, affirmative action, and regulations about wages, hours, and occupational safety and health. But she has been sidelined by her own obfuscation, not by the politics of personal destruction. In the words of the conservative right, she ought to "take responsibility" for her actions and stop blaming the jargon of blaming the politics of personal destruction.

Commentary
January 10, 2001