Above the Law? Rethinking the Politics of Corruption
Americans are the victims of theft. A bribe here, a kickback there, and fraud everywhere — these are just a few of the techniques of a dark political trade, that is, corruption. But, one might hear, who cares that Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws, or if the president of the United States directed him to commit that crime? Why work oneself up over payoffs and bank fraud? Perhaps the charges against the president matter, and matter greatly, but how do voters make sense of it all?
This is a conversation that should begin, I think, with changing how we think and talk about the problem. For example, it is important that we have some real awareness of how citizens process the alleged transgressions of their leaders. In the next section, I outline three empirical insights about voter psychology around issues of wrongdoing.
1. “They all do it.”
Americans believe that corruption is widespread in government, among politicians, and in their public systems. “They all do it,” one might say. Of course, that is unlikely the case; yet, the proportion of Americans who believe quite a few government officials are crooked has risen sharply since 2002, according to data from the American National Election Study (ANES). Although jokes about the ‘lyin’ politician’ abound, this framing can have consequences for trust of government and voter turnout. Moreover, it normalizes behavior that is governed by norms about conduct, which has the potential to encourage impropriety across government because, well, “they all do it.” In short, we must avoid disparaging the integrity of a whole class of politicians.
2. Favoritism v. Lawbreaking
What, exactly, is corruption? The question is not a new one, but it is no less relevant today. In the past — nay, even today — academics, legal scholars, and government actors across the world struggle with determining who and what is corrupt. A common definition includes using public office for private gain, but this view is no more instructive in defining the boundaries of public integrity. Part of the challenge is that we do not all regard the same practices as corrupt. Indeed, because the techniques of graft are varied in scale and consequence, and some of it legal, the gradients of acceptable conduct are reflected in the public judgment of it.
It may help, then, to think about the problem of “corruption-as-favoritism” as well as the problem of “corruption-as-lawbreaking.” The first deals with political favors that may be legal but that pose ethical dilemmas. These favors are often treated as the cost and benefit of doing business, or simply the way business is done, and they are not always met with objection because of perceived efficiency of the political exchange. On the other hand, the latter is concerned with that conduct which is prohibited — laws that are being expressly violated. How we talk about each can lead to different kinds of political mobilization. For example, white, middle-class, conservative voters are more likely to see illegal actions as corrupt, and less likely to see favoritism as the same. Messages can be framed to affirm either worldview.
3. Suspicion Matters
According to a recent survey, 61 percent of Republicans believe the FBI is framing the president, thanks to rhetoric emanating from the White House about “fake news” and a “witch hunt.” Why is that important? Because if voters are suspicious about the ulterior motivates of investigators and prosecutors, they are less likely to penalize transgressed political leaders. In many ways, President Trump has been successful at using actual problems in the FBI in his favor. Therefore, the best course is to refrain from quickly dismissing those concerns (and thereby putting people on the defensive), start with a statement of facts related to serious concerns about criminal misconduct, and then address the myth.
The problem of corruption is real. When elected officials engage in graft, they wittingly participate in a scheme that undermines the efficiency and integrity of our public systems and spark questions such as: Are decisions for sale? Who benefits? And who loses? The psychological, ethical, and moral considerations that entangle how we think about conduct do not always unfold as we might expect. Embattled politicians routinely get re-elected, for example. Perhaps, in such an environment, we would benefit from taking a wider view of political ethics, and designing messaging that better reflects our messy understanding of one of the oldest political trades.
Nyron N. Crawford, PhD, is a Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.
