The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.

During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.

An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment.

Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act.

He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance—accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy—to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction.

The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner’s previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline.

More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and “flag” any that mentioned Donald Trump.

It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon’s “Enemy List”: revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass, restricting AP reporters’ access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for “fake news” or calling journalists “nasty.”

Turner accepts the status quo—having to keep silent, among many things he raised his voice against in the past, to maintain his position, to cause change, or to hold power. This is perfectly exhibited in the current situation with Trump’s attempts to suppress the Epstein situation and his general attitude towards the press; Much less, in the past, provoked Turner to denounce his colleagues for a lack of transparency. The Turner case is a more nuanced example of how politics and principle, strategy and idealism, are in constant struggle. Voters need to check the ambitions of politicians, whether they drive improper conduct or complicity through power-seeking or good-faith intentions to pursue their policy goals.

Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets like the North American Anglican and the Conservative Woman.