Hillary Clinton's campaign fired Mark Penn, the longtime pollster and senior strategist for "Billary," after it was disclosed that he met with representatives of the Colombian government to strategize about how to ensure Congressional approval of a free trade agreement Senator Clinton publicly opposes. Penn did this in his capacity as CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the country's largest public relations firms, but when you are helping one client pursue one objective while advising another client on how to oppose the same objective the first client has hired you to achieve, that is a conflict of interest, big time. Doing the job for one client makes it impossible to do the job for the other, and vice-versa: it is a zero-sum game, and that makes it the kind of conflict that violates the ethical principle of loyalty.

Now, Penn might believe that he could be the equivalent of two people, devoting his full efforts and talents to achieving the trade pact while on the clock for Colombia, then working equally hard to oppose the same measure when serving as a Clinton strategist. Indeed, given that political operatives like Penn tend to have no beliefs of their own that aren't subject to adjustment in exchange for cash or power, he is probably right. Becoming a zealot for the opposite point of view is for him as easy as removing a Chicago Cubs cap and replacing it with a New York Yankees cap (to cite an example his candidate would understand). But it doesn't matter. While he was helping Hillary, he was hurting Colombia's interests. This got Burson fired by Columbia. And disclosures about Penn's assisting Colombia called into question Clinton's sincerity on the trade issue, which is near and dear to some of her union supporters. That meant that Penn had to leave his job with Clinton as well.

Penn's service as a double-agent has deeper ethical implications than just conflicts of interest. The episode shows how voter belief in any political candidate's positions is built on sand and fog. Penn isn't the only prominent individual on Sen. Clinton's team who has vigorously worked for the trade agreement: aspiring First Husband Bill has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by supporters of the U.S.-Colombia trade deal to speak on its behalf. This is also a conflict of interest, as some of that money almost certainly was channeled into her trade agreement-opposing campaign. The Penn episode (as well as the source of Bill's income) suggests an absence of honesty and integrity in the Clinton campaign, just as comments abroad by two Obama advisors, to the effect that some of his public positions were considerably more extreme than what he would advocate if elected, raised similar questions about Obama's campaign, and just as Senator McCain's history of close relationships with lobbyists undercuts his stated zeal for lobbying reforms. Note the distinction between Columbia's situation and the Clinton campaign's point of view. Colombia's government fired Penn for the transgression of working against it behind the scenes. Clinton fired Penn because the discovery of his inconsistency was embarrassing. Right now, Clinton is only interested in the political benefits of having an anti-Colombian trade position, not in the actual resolution of the issue---her immediate objective is to attract votes, not to monitor trade policy. It is conceivable, and perhaps even likely, that the campaign knew that Penn was helping Colombia. He had an obligation to inform them, after all, and his work for Colombia had no negative impact on Clinton.

Until it was discovered, that is.

Political satirists and cynics since the days of Finley Peter Dunne

(See http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=1352), through to Will Rogers, Tom Lehrer, Mort Sahl, Mark Russell, and Lewis Black, have always told the American people that politicians will say anything to get elected, and then reverse field once they are. History shows that the cynics are almost always right about this. Still, they have been wrong just often enough for the public to keep believing in their candidates, mostly because they want to and need to. Cynicism is an enemy of democracy. But in this information age, hiding one's true beliefs and intentions has become far more difficult than it was in the days of Dunne and Rogers, or even Mark Russell. In fact, it may have become impossible. This is bad news for the likes of Mark Penn and other political consultants who are walking, talking monuments to cynicism, and it is confounding news for candidates. Nonetheless, it eventually will be good news for America and America's public.

Candidates---the vast majority of them, anyway---will never be forthright about their true intentions and beliefs just because it is the ethical course. When it is the only safe course open to them, however, they will take it. The day when a Mark Penn can blithely advise clients to do one thing while plotting with a presidential candidate to block them is quickly approaching sunset.

Good.