Corruption’s Slippery Slope
Politics will always be messy. Its our job to keep it in check.
Midway through the U.S. 2016 electoral season, a Rassmusen poll found that 81% [of Americans] think the Federal Government is corrupt. If you are one of these Americans, your concern is valid. President-Elect Trump campaigned against the corrupt elite and swampy Washington. And now, countless Americans are decrying the corruption of the United States and the incoming Trump Administration.
American leaders may be corrupt. The convictions of high-level leaders like U.S. Representative Chaka Fattah remind us that they often are. It is the definitive responsibility of citizens to hold them accountable. But to do so, Americans should have a clear conception of corruption. It is not a word to use lightly. It is not clearly black and white — even if we want it to be.
With a nuanced conception, we can understand why leaders act against the norms and laws that govern communities. We can comprehend the development of tolerance for shady behavior and corruption. There is a line; we must recognize the social norms and individual motivations that demand politicians to cross it.
Corruption vs. Politics
Even in the model West, politics has historically been messy, at least to some degree. Otto von Bismark’s famous description of the political arena reads, “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.”
Over the human history, politics has operated in the gray; several of America’s leaders are no exception. The early years of 18th century America featured backroom deals, such as the compromise of 1790, that have been associated with elite wheeling and dealing. 19th century America experienced the partisan corruption of New York City’s Tammany Hall. 20th century citizens witnessed the Watergate Scandal that exposed illegal political contributions. And in the 21st century, we have seen a corruption case against Virginia’s Governor and local corruption in states like Florida, where 824 public officials were convicted from 1998 to 2007.
Some of these leaders are corrupt and some aren’t. In America, most leaders engage in what citizens consider “corruption” in response to personal convictions or institutional pressures. Leaders often have good intentions, but as some social scientists argue, they (like most people) “underestimate the influence of the pressures, cultures, and norms that surround executive decision making.” They face hard choices. Several leaders commit suspect actions as a means to a political end; some — the corrupt ones — actually betray public trust for private gain.
Indeed, corruption is not a new cancer; it affects every country in the world. While corruption exists in American politics, Americans who claim that a candidate in the 2016 election is the most corrupt politician in the world should look up Vladamir Putin, Teodoro Obiang, and Nicolás Maduro.
Ultimately, when a body of people entrusts public leadership to a small group of elected officials and an ambiguous bureaucracy, messiness should be expected. This does not excuse suspect behavior, but it provides important context. Citizens should think carefully about how to discern the gray of politics and the truly corrupt, and how to avoid both. In the current system, the people with power and resources that are responsible to constituents will at best get their hands dirty for you, and at worst for themselves. Any politician who once had idealistic hopes would agree.
Defining Corruption
Reacting to the growing concern of corruption in the West, scholar Sarah Chayes deemed the 2016 election a Corruption Election, arguing that “it is now urgent to ask whether we still understand what corruption is.” In most nations, corruption is defined legally as “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power,” typically for private gain. However, a secondary definition provides more guidance for how we should perceive corrupt action: it is “a departure from the original or from what is pure.”
“Corruption derives from the Latin corrumpero: to break up, to spoil… corruption is when something breaks within itself: the apple rots on the shelf; narcissism corrodes the soul; government internally disintegrates.” -Zephyr Teachout in The Anti-Corruption Principle
Effectively, pure are corrupt if they stray from pure intentions and spoil for private gain. In this context, it is critical to recognize when leaders are acting on behalf an ideology citizens support or out of pure self-interest, without any concern for those they purport to serve. These are difficult assessments — the burden is on us to make them.
The Slippery Slope
When corruption lurks, it is mostly our fault.
As citizens, we tend to blame politicians for most of our problems, yet we expect them to solve our problems, however difficult it may be. Our disagreement over the merit of our leaders often boils down to whether or not they are producing results and ones we prefer; do you really care how?
If we do not, we should expect corruption to follow its slippery slope. Americans citizens have created an environment and expectations, through both formal and informal institutions, that give way to corrupt acts. At first, it is a shady deal to secure constituent jobs. Soon, its the revolving door with lobbyists and contractors to keep your influence. Then, its dirty money to maintain the power and influence that only the elite feel they can wield. Finally, its the leader that sets up a patronage network to benefit themselves.
We have neglected to keep the gray area of America’s politics in check. Corruption is not yet endemic in the American system — truly corrupt officials have been rare — but it lurks. Reflecting on the election, President Reagan’s Special Assistant Peggy Noonan expressed concern. The perspective, in brief below, is a bit dramatic, but many Americans share it.
“The Democratic Party…is now kept together by one central organizing principle: the brute acquisition of power, and holding on to that power no matter what…Both parties have their webs.” — Peggy Noonan
As the authors of the Dictator’s Handbook assert, in democracies and autocracies alike, leaders often “do whatever keeps them in power.” Unless each citizen advocates for institutions and a culture in which leaders are rewarded for transparency, ingenuity, and ethical behavior, we should expect public servants to occasionally operate in the gray at best, and commit corrupt acts at worst. If you were a leader, you might, too.
What Can Americans Do
For this reason, citizens have to engage in their politics at all levels and hold their citizens accountable. We can address corruption by recognizing our system’s flaws and by getting involved. We define corruption, be vigilant of its practice, and design institutions that limit the behavior that leads to it. People in countries around the world with rampant corruption are forced to do this regularly. America’s democratic republic may have been more “successful,” but thats no excuse to get lazy, lest it decay. It is on you.
Three institutional and cultural characteristics could potentially reduce corruption: 1) accessible networks, 2) genuine promises, & 3) valued ethics.
- Everyone knows that relationships are currency in politics. They affect how you think, to whom you talk, and from where you get information. As research in the Dictator’s Handbook shows, governments differ “…only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching.” Instead of turning away from the “elite,” we should pay more attention to leaders’ relational networks and stakeholders. They should be diverse. With this information, we can determine the extent to which our leaders’ behavior is pure and an effort to serve us.
- Allowing politicians to make realistic promises and not pledge perfection may alleviate pressure to deliver and enable our leaders to make sound decisions. It will reward the personal integrity we preach in leadership development. Most importantly, it will reframe expectations. They should be high, but they should not set us up for disappointment and failure. In Noonan’s election coverage, she found that “that sincere conservatives wholly opposed to socialism had real respect for Bernie Sanders because they saw his sincerity.”
- If we expect our leaders to achieve their objects “at all costs,” we should expect them to cut corners and engage in shady activities. That kind of pressure can warp a person’s civic compass. They can forget the end that they are pursuing, and come to believe that their private wellbeing and involvement is necessary to its achievement. Or citizens can shrug concerns for a disruptive leader like Trump. So, we should value ethics.
Many American leaders of both parties want to improve people’s lives and make this country better. However, even the best of the best act within institutional contexts and social norms. Even the best can become corrupt. In politics today, one must trade favors and looking out for oneself and ones allies. You would do it, too. Soon, the slope may become too slippery.
Call to Action
With this in mind, Americans must respond. Leaders and citizens need to design systems and pass laws that incentivize transparent behavior and public integrity. We need institutions and human structures that prevent corrupt tendencies. America has been close to the edge of those tendencies before. It has been its institutions and people that have prevented the fall.
“The difference between a corrupted…state and a state that can still call itself a place of representative rule…It is the degree to which the institutions of state — legislative bodies, the police, the courts — serve as instruments of the mighty or as checks on arbitrary power.” — Tom Burgis, the Looting Machine
My plea to American citizens, and in particular, to American millennials, is to recognize that this problem falls to all of us. It stems from our system our culture, and our community. The path to America’s strength began with self-government — the opportunity to shape community with the vote. But America’s true triumph is its resilience in the face of imperfection.
We should stay vigilant, hold leaders accountable, and remember that it is human society — not distant leaders — that bred the corruption we detest.
