Why Not Quid Pro Quo

Why Not Quid Pro Quo?

Seems like all we hear these days is more negativity about our president and alleged quid pro quo.

When my daughter was young, she and I watched The Princess Bride and throughout the movie Vizzini states things (in general) are “inconceivable”.  Eventually Inigo states you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.  I think the same may be true about quid pro quo, particularly in all of its ubiquity in the news.  As a result, I have some thoughts I would like to share with you about quid pro quo.

Anyone that has ever seen the movie The Bishop’s Wife with Carey Grant, Loretta Young, and David Niven perhaps will remember these words, you give me a book. I give you a tie.  (From the Christmas Eve sermon.)  In other words, you give me something and I give you something in return.

The Latin phrase quid pro quo initially inferred an item had been substituted for an intended item, as in this for that.  The term quid pro quo became popular among English speakers with occurrences as early as the 1530s where the term referred to either intentionally or unintentionally substituting one medicine for another.  I suspect the original quid pro quo started off innocently enough with something no more complex than (as in an exchange of money for resources) a merchant did not have a specific resource so the merchant replaced that resource with something as good as or better than the requested resource.

If you use quid pro quo as a noun, it means a favor or an advantage granted in return for something.  An example would be our legal system has always granted (up to) witness protection in return for evidence to bring down the hierarchy of the mobs working within the United States or granting immunity to lesser criminals in return for information that could lead to the arrest and conviction of a criminal of greater unsavory reputation.

Christians believe that in forsaking the devil, Christians receive in return a place in Christ’s heavenly kingdom for eternity.

Synonyms for quid pro quo include:

• deal,
• trade,
• agreement,
• exchange,
• trade off,
• tit for tat,
• an eye for an eye*,
• switch,
• swap, 
• I will scratch your back if you scratch mine,
• reciprocity, and
• something for something.

*Interestingly enough, the origin of an eye for an eye can be traced back to the ancient Mesopotamian Empire during King Hammurabi's rule during the 18th century BC (circa 1792-1750 BC).  An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth was part of the Code of Hammurabi; the Code of Hammurabi contains some 282 laws with punishments assessed for each law (or laws) a would be offender might violate.  An eye for an eye was merely one of those laws.  The full quotation from Hammurabi's code reads, if a man has destroyed the eye of a man of the gentleman class, they shall destroy his eye.  Sounds plain enough!  Hammurabi’s Code is considered one of the earliest and most complete written statutes from ancient times; it comes from a time long before the bible was written which is somewhat remarkable as we really had no pointers to distinguish good from bad; or good from evil.  And yes, the Code of Hammurabi was enforced - exactly.

Notoriety of the term quid pro quo seemingly did not take on the new connotation of being of bad reputation or ill repute in the United States until about 8 September through 12 September 1991 as the Tailhook scandal manifested when more than 100 United States Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women and seven men, or otherwise engaged in "improper and indecent" conduct at the Las Vegas Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada; indelibly placing a black eye upon Naval and Marine Corps Aviation.

I am no attorney and I do not imply there was quid pro quo between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine,  I just have a thought to share!

Yesterday, I was at the HogsHead Cigar Lounge at 9849 Jefferson Davis Hwy in Fredericksburg VA visiting with some ole cronies and Bill (real name) asked a question something along the lines of - why shouldn’t there be quid pro quo, I mean it is taxpayer dollars being spent in another country, shouldn’t the taxpayer have a say in how the money should be spent?

Again, I do not infer there was quid pro quo between our president and another world leader.  All I am saying is I think my buddy Bill had a good point.  Why Not Quid Pro Quo?