Controversial position: There's nothing wrong with corruption in politics

[Beet]

During the 2016, many people accused Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump of "corruption". For example, the e-mails from Hillary Clinton's server, while never proving corruption, were supposed to suggest it, and this was seen as outrageous. As for myself, I was never outraged over it.

Argument 1
First, people say that corruption is bad because it results in politicians making bad policies. For instance, if a candidate takes money from a rich guy, the candidate will do what the rich guy wants, instead of what's best for the country.

Rebuttal
But the problem here isn't that the candidate took money from the rich guy and did what the rich guy wants. The problem is that the candidate made a policy that was bad for the country. So you oppose the candidate because of his bad policies, not because of who he took money from. What if what the rich guy wanted was also the best policy for the country? In that case it's good that the politician took money from him.

Argument 2
When money dominates politics, rich guys have more say than not-rich guys, and that's unfair.

Rebuttal
I agree with this completely, which is why I support campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections. The problem though, is that this has nothing to do with corruption. It's an argument about unequal influence. What if a politician gets a poor guy out of a traffic ticket, in exchange for the poor guy's vote in the next election? The poor can benefit from corruption, too.

Argument 3
When politicians are bought, you don't know what they really think. They'll have a public position on one thing and a private position on another.

Rebuttal
Who really cares, though? The only thing that matters is what they actually do. We'll never know what they're thinking privately, but it should be unimportant because it impacts no one.

Argument 4
It's fundamentally unethical for a politician to take a political position just because someone else gave them something else they wanted. I respect people who advocate what they think more than people who pander just because they think it will get them votes, or money, or other concessions.

Rebuttal
This is the most absurd argument when it comes to politics. When Jefferson and Madison wanted the capital on the Potomac, and Hamilton wanted the government to assume state debts, they agreed to a trade whereby both actions would occur. Did Hamilton really want the capital on the Potomac? No. He agreed to it only because he got something else. In other words, horse-trading and compromise. If everyone pig-headedly only advocated what they wanted and never compromised, nothing would get done. This is the essence of politics, not a perversion of it.

Argument 5
Politics is a dirty profession.

Rebuttal
Politics may be rough and tumble, but think of the alternative. Before people learned to resolve their differences through things like politics, they resolved their differences by killing each other. Now, at least we can settle things peacefully. That is preferable, until someone comes up with a better alternative.

------

The 2016 election has clarified my thoughts on such matters. I always wondered by some aspects of certain candidates didn't bother me as much as others, and I finally can articulate why. Of course this doesn't mean that I won't fully criticize politicians I don't like when they are exposed to be corrupt.

[NeverAgain]

Stop.

[Santander]

Stop.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The first couple reasons seem like whataboutery. Until we have good examples of corruption being used to help the little guy, it basically doesn't matter that it could. Clientelism comes close as an example, but maybe we shouldn't be looking to Latin America (where clientelism is oftentimes the best of a few bad options) for our political structure.

     The third one misses the point, and the fourth one is subordinate to it. People are concerned insofar as it comes down to being a consistent advocate for certain issues. Most people would rather have someone on their side who they can trust to stay there than someone who is just there to please rich donors and will leave as soon as it is politically convenient to do so.

     The fifth point is a non sequitur. Politics can be rough and tumble without being grossly corrupt. Part of making that happen is the voters refusing to accept corruption from candidates for office.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like how you present this as a "controversial" opinion when it is literally the conventional wisdom in DC and most state capitals.

     Many politicians dabble in corruption, but I doubt many would come out and offer an intellectual defense of corruption. In that way I would suggest the topic title is misleading: the position itself is not controversial (at least within the political class), but rather the arguments for it are controversial.

[RINO Tom]

Anyone with half a brain should admit that there "is something wrong" with corruption being rampant in politics, some people just take the attitude that it isn't worth choosing your candidates over such an issue, due to the assumption that nearly everyone else is corrupt to a degree, as well.  That doesn't mean they think it's okay.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

[Santander]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

I would not describe Hillary as corrupt. I think she'd be more accurately described as having occasional poor judgment and a flexible view of ethics. I don't find the latter to be undesirable. I believe she believes she is doing the right thing, and her determination should be an inspiration to us all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

Of course you do. She's the only reason your hero is a week away from moving to the White House. All Republicans should thank her.

[Phony Moderate]

The most important thing (from a PR POV) isn't whether you're corrupt, it's whether you appear corrupt.

[NeverAgain]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

Of course you do. She's the only reason your hero is a week away from moving to the White House. All Republicans should thank her.

For what? Pushing for programs like SCHIP and helping get 9/11 First Responders healthcare are accomplishments the American people thank her on.

She lost the Electoral Vote in an election, where the electorate was against the perception of her from the beginning. Stop blaming Hillary, and ask yourself what you did to stop Donald Trump, other than casually posting on an internet forum.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

Of course you do. She's the only reason your hero is a week away from moving to the White House. All Republicans should thank her.

For what? Pushing for programs like SCHIP and helping get 9/11 First Responders healthcare are accomplishments the American people thank her on.

She lost the Electoral Vote in an election, where the electorate was against the perception of her from the beginning. Stop blaming Hillary, and ask yourself what you did to stop Donald Trump, other than casually posting on an internet forum.

As it happens, most of the things I could have done to influence the US election happen to be illegal for me to do.

But yeah, keep deluding yourself that there's nothing wrong with Hillary and the way she ran her campaign, and that she only lost because of bigotry and sexism or whatever. See how well it works out for Democrats in 2020.

[Santander]

As it happens, most of the things I could have done to influence the US election happen to be illegal for me to do.

But yeah, keep deluding yourself that there's nothing wrong with Hillary and the way she ran her campaign, and that she only lost because of bigotry and sexism or whatever. See how it works out for Democrats in 2020.

As it happens, one of the few things you're not allowed to do is donate to a campaign. Which you did anyway.

[Beet]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

A candidate who came within 80,000 votes of delivering the first Democratic third term since Truman.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

A candidate who came within 80,000 votes of delivering the first Democratic third term since Truman.

Oh well, that's really wonderful. Guess everything's fine then!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...a candidate who lost to a Reality TV star who was not particularly popular with the people who voted for him.

[Associate Justice PiT]

...a candidate who lost to a Reality TV star who was not particularly popular with the people who voted for him.

     Important point to emphasize here. Trump didn't win because people really loved him and what he stood for.

[NeverAgain]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

Of course you do. She's the only reason your hero is a week away from moving to the White House. All Republicans should thank her.

For what? Pushing for programs like SCHIP and helping get 9/11 First Responders healthcare are accomplishments the American people thank her on.

She lost the Electoral Vote in an election, where the electorate was against the perception of her from the beginning. Stop blaming Hillary, and ask yourself what you did to stop Donald Trump, other than casually posting on an internet forum.

As it happens, most of the things I could have done to influence the US election happen to be illegal for me to do.

But yeah, keep deluding yourself that there's nothing wrong with Hillary and the way she ran her campaign, and that she only lost because of bigotry and sexism or whatever. See how well it works out for Democrats in 2020.

Well, if you weren't involved in the campaign, then you shouldn't blame it/her for the falsecomings of millions of Americans.

Her campaign won 3 million more votes, brought out record turnouts in states and has been able to make close states like GA, AZ, and even TX. I don't know what the rationale for all those 80,000 people that decided the election voting the way they did, but I'm sure it wasn't because they thought "Hillary is not left enough for me".

I do know, however, that those millions of millennials, registered Democrats, Green Party voters, etc. who decided that "both candidates are corrupt" or "everything is the same" are the sole reason, as I see it, and as the voting records show, that we have a President Trump.

If you have thoughts as how to Hillary could have actually tapped out to them, I'd love to hear it. But please don't say that "muh clinton campaign lost election, cuz hillary meanie corrupt!"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, if you weren't involved in the campaign, then you shouldn't blame it/her for the falsecomings of millions of Americans.

LOL, so you're only allowed to criticize the campaigns you personally participated in? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So f**king what? That's not going to stop T***p and Ryan from destroying this country for the next 4+ years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, maybe you should try to spend some time try to understand what their rationale was, instead of assuming that your candidate was just too good for this sinful earth or something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really, the "sole" reason? And voting records "show" it? You might be a brilliant election analyst who saw something we all missed, but you'll have to elaborate a bit if you want to be taken seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary embodied everything that large swathes of the electorate (including many core Democratic voters) despise. She made absolutely no appeal to struggling working class voters (the way Obama did in 2008 and 2012) and ran her entire campaign as a culture war against those backward "deplorables". She made no effort to shake off the impression that she was part of the collusion of big business and politics that has been screwing over America for decades - but then again, how could she have? It could be seen from miles away.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary embodied everything that large swathes of the electorate (including many core Democratic voters) despise. She made absolutely no appeal to struggling working class voters (the way Obama did in 2008 and 2012) and ran her entire campaign as a culture war against those backward "deplorables". She made no effort to shake off the impression that she was part of the collusion of big business and politics that has been screwing over America for decades - but then again, how could she have? It could be seen from miles away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, what a focused attack on those deplorable WWC's. No advocating for the working class here. /s The media deciding to report on the 'basket of deplorables' line (taken way out of context) and culture wars stuff(likely because stuff like that fits the nations perception of Hillary as an establishment liberal focused on culture wars and not economics) instead of her economic message wasn't her fault. Stop with the obsessive hatred. You're supposed to be a feminist. So stop blaming one of the most effective (and unfortunately few) female leaders in the world for factors mostly out of control(her mistakes in 2016 were mostly tactical, focusing on AZ and NC instead of WI MI PA, investing in NC instead of GA, etc. And you could debate that they were only so obvious in hindsight). Hillary didn't start the right-wing smear campaign against herself, Hillary didn't create the sexist framework that limits women in this world, Hillary didn't make the media ignore the economic parts of her message for more email BS, and Hillary didn't create the world-wide right wing populist uprising that's getting ready to screw up everything.

[Devout Centrist]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

I would not describe Hillary as corrupt. I think she'd be more accurately described as having occasional poor judgment and a flexible view of ethics. I don't find the latter to be undesirable. I believe she believes she is doing the right thing, and her determination should be an inspiration to us all.

I find myself agreeing more and more with you

[Santander]

Nice display of sophistry to justify your insane deification of a godawful candidate who will go down in history as one of the worst things to ever happen to Democrats.

Give me a break. Even I respect Hillary.

I would not describe Hillary as corrupt. I think she'd be more accurately described as having occasional poor judgment and a flexible view of ethics. I don't find the latter to be undesirable. I believe she believes she is doing the right thing, and her determination should be an inspiration to us all.

I find myself agreeing more and more with you

Soon you'll be wearing a brown shirt red cap.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Functional" arguments for corruption are nothing new.

[muon2]

One thing I am seeing here is an extension of the meaning of political corruption beyond that found in the dictionary. Here is what the Oxford Dictionary writes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other dictionaries may include illegal behavior as well in the definition.

Note that the meaning of corruption does not include unequal access to power by the rich, if that unequal access is neither dishonest nor frauduent. Unequal access is an issue separate from corruption. Trying to eliminate corruption when conflating it with unequal access confuses the two issues and makes dealing with either of them harder.

[muon2]

I still stand by the distinction I made. I think there is a significant difference between a quid pro quo bribe or extortion and a donation to support candidates with ideas that match one's own. Here are two cases involving a large donation that I will assume fall within the legal limits for the particular state.

Case 1: A governor demands a $50K campaign donation from a hospital before signing a bill that would provide a $5M grant to the hospital. It's a dishonest use of the political office unrelated to the policies held out to the voters who elected the governor. To me that's corruption and should be prosecuted as an illegal act.

Case 2: A legislator runs on a pro-labor platform and receives a $50K campaign donation from a large union. In the term after the election a lobbyist from the union walks the legislator through a controversial bill that will help the union secure $5M in labor contracts from the state, and the legislator agrees to vote for the bill. Based on the positions espoused by the legislator during the campaign, it was pretty clear that the legislator would vote for a bill like that, and there was no dishonesty to the voters. There was certainly influential access by the union but I don't see that as corruption.

One can debate the merits of large donations to campaigns, and how to fund campaigns when donations are limited. But case 1 could have been about $50K in personal gifts and case 2 could have been about professional lobbyists when no donation was made, and campaign finance laws wouldn't come into play. Even so case 1 would still be about corruption and case 2 about the influence of wealthy interests.