An individual lies to a judge, the police, the senate, or congress, it's a punishable crime. With a big CEO or a politician, it's just Politics.
An individual steals money either physically or by massaging figures, it's called THEFT - prison time. With Managers, CEOs and Politicians, it's just politics and corruption.
To me, the worst part of these words is this:
Politics and corruption are umbrella terms for many minor to serious activities - bribery, assassination, character assassination [1], theft of funds, fraud, dereliction of duty, incompetence, lies, tribalism, kleptocracy, racism, breaking of laws...
And this makes it hard for people to react to allegations of corruption or politicking. Because you won't know if the accused has committed a misdemeanor or treason.
Summary: If someone steals, call them a thief - not corrupt.
To equate "politics" with lying, stealing, and corruption is the sort of cynicism that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This article is fundamentally based on the fact that there is a lot of variance in the amount of illegal activity in business and politics (and life generally) between countries: the Scandinavian countries are universally considered to be pretty close to corruption-free. Eastern and Southern Europe are a bit worse, parts of Africa and South America are really bad, and Asia in the middle. The US, contrary to popular opinion, has also long been ahead of most other countries, and even been the driving international force against corruption through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
That law made it illegal for US companies to engage in corruption abroad. It was passed in 1977. As a contrast, consider that German companies were still taking tax deductions for foreign bribes until 2002[0].
There are, in other words, very obvious regional differences. Additionally, there have been rather drastic changes along the temporal dimension, as well: Eastern Europe and Asia, for example, have come a long way over the last thirty years. Italy, original inventor of the Mafia, is solidly average these days, probably more similar to Germany or the UK than to its own past.
So, logically, if levels of corruption are different, that shows that equating all politics with corruption is wrong, and it demands at least some nuance or your criticism becomes entirely decoupled from reality and therefore no longer a useful tool to improve anything.
If, as a politician or bureaucrat, all you ever hear are superficial "everything-is-terrible" accusations completely devoid of any connection to anything you are actually doing, you will pretty soon just start engaging in that sort of activity: your public image cannot get any worse, anyway.
And people growing up in a society with these believes will start their careers in politics or business with such assumptions, and act accordingly.[1]
[0]: yes, it's true that some corrupt practices have simply been legalized in the US. But that's a failure of the voting public, and it's still better because it's known. And yes, the illegal stuff is making a comeback, considering the current President is both on record as supporting a repeal of FCPA, as well as having good reasons to do so
[1]: Of note, AOC observed not too long ago that before being elected to congress, she expected the corruption to be transactional, i. e. money for something in explicit quid-pro-quo. As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.
“AOC observed not too long ago that before being elected to congress, she expected the corruption to be transactional, i. e. money for something in explicit quid-pro-quo. As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.“
I think this is much worse in the long run. The people who are lobbied and the people who lobby become the same.
So the solution is don’t have human relationships?
Some this can’t be avoided, some of it can, despite relationships, if people stick to principles and also balance the requirements of all their constituencies.
You can have relationships but as a lawmaker you have to be careful who you associate with. During the 2008 crisis it seemed pretty obvious that a lot of people in Congress and at the Fed felt more affinity towards bankers vs other citizens. Or the current administration seems to talk only to business people and not other groups like unions about the economy. The lack of balance is a problem.
>> As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.
> So the solution is don’t have human relationships?
No. The solution is probably that the politicians need to be more choosy about who they form human relationships with. They should probably exchange all the time they spend with paid lobbyists for more time with their constituents and relatively unbiased experts.
> To equate "politics" with lying, stealing, and corruption is the sort of cynicism that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Politics _is_ lying, stealing and corruption.
> This article is fundamentally based on the fact that there is a lot of variance in the amount of illegal activity in business and politics (and life generally) between countries: the Scandinavian countries are universally considered to be pretty close to corruption-free.
See Assange's case.
>Eastern and Southern Europe are a bit worse, parts of Africa and South America are really bad, and Asia in the middle. The US, contrary to popular opinion, has also long been ahead of most other countries, and even been the driving international force against corruption through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
You contradict yourself. See bellow.
> That law made it illegal for US companies to engage in corruption abroad. It was passed in 1977. As a contrast, consider that German companies were still taking tax deductions for foreign bribes until 2002[0].
Well, Microsoft and HP had no problem to use corruption in Eastern Europe.
> There are, in other words, very obvious regional differences. Additionally, there have been rather drastic changes along the temporal dimension, as well: Eastern Europe and Asia, for example, have come a long way over the last thirty years. Italy, original inventor of the Mafia, is solidly average these days, probably more similar to Germany or the UK than to its own past.
Of course there are differences. Corruption is country specific.
> So, logically, if levels of corruption are different, that shows that equating all politics with corruption is wrong, and it demands at least some nuance or your criticism becomes entirely decoupled from reality and therefore no longer a useful tool to improve anything.
> If, as a politician or bureaucrat, all you ever hear are superficial "everything-is-terrible" accusations completely devoid of any connection to anything you are actually doing, you will pretty soon just start engaging in that sort of activity: your public image cannot get any worse, anyway.
> And people growing up in a society with these believes will start their careers in politics or business with such assumptions, and act accordingly.[1]
> [0]: yes, it's true that some corrupt practices have simply been legalized in the US. But that's a failure of the voting public, and it's still better because it's known. And yes, the illegal stuff is making a comeback, considering the current President is both on record as supporting a repeal of FCPA, as well as having good reasons to do so
> [1]: Of note, AOC observed not too long ago that before being elected to congress, she expected the corruption to be transactional, i. e. money for something in explicit quid-pro-quo. As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.
> if levels of corruption are different, that shows that equating all politics with corruption is wrong
It is wrong if you're talking about the space of any potential political system, but in the context of US federal politics it's largely correct. I think many people have the cause backwards: You don't have a cabal of corrupt people who are subverting and breaking a noble system. You've got a broken system which rewards and elevates those willing to lie and steal, which leads to the most successful politicians being those willing to lie and steal. They subtly adjust the system and expectations to reward their own behaviors, which makes it easier for the next cycle of more greedy sociopaths to rise to the top.
This is why the solution isn't just electing the right people in November. If, somehow, AOC or Bernie or whoever your chosen 'ideal uncorrupted candidate' did get elected, that wouldn't mean we'd solved the problem of lying and stealing in US politics, it would just self-correct after a few voting cycles. The really hard problem is developing a political system that has a feedback loop maintaining and supporting the desired behaviors which can't become (using the word literally) corrupted.
But just to play devils advocate, politicians spending time in the company of subject matter experts is a good, not a bad thing and AOC could use a bit more of that and a little less wishes and dreams.
Corruption is an umbrella for a reason although the more specific crime should be used in general. If given a choice between two discretionary apparently adequate canidates choosing either one is perfectly fine. Choosing one because of connections or because they paid a bribe is not even though it results in no marginal additional expenses to the entity.
I can't help but think to ask where do you live where libel actually results in that? From US perspective criminal libel is just too exploitable to allow as a criminal offense instead of a tort with claims of damages. The chilling effect of "jail for calling a serial rapist a rapist or the corruot corrupt" is just too great to be accsptable. It might be related to the Alien and Sedition act abuses and backlash (notably a case where of the first congressman elected while in jail and unable to campaign after his only failed defense for a critical publication amounted to "This law is blatantly unconstitutional."
11 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 37.6 ms ] threadAn individual lies to a judge, the police, the senate, or congress, it's a punishable crime. With a big CEO or a politician, it's just Politics.
An individual steals money either physically or by massaging figures, it's called THEFT - prison time. With Managers, CEOs and Politicians, it's just politics and corruption.
To me, the worst part of these words is this:
Politics and corruption are umbrella terms for many minor to serious activities - bribery, assassination, character assassination [1], theft of funds, fraud, dereliction of duty, incompetence, lies, tribalism, kleptocracy, racism, breaking of laws...
And this makes it hard for people to react to allegations of corruption or politicking. Because you won't know if the accused has committed a misdemeanor or treason.
Summary: If someone steals, call them a thief - not corrupt.
1. Libel - fine or jail term for normal people.
This article is fundamentally based on the fact that there is a lot of variance in the amount of illegal activity in business and politics (and life generally) between countries: the Scandinavian countries are universally considered to be pretty close to corruption-free. Eastern and Southern Europe are a bit worse, parts of Africa and South America are really bad, and Asia in the middle. The US, contrary to popular opinion, has also long been ahead of most other countries, and even been the driving international force against corruption through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
That law made it illegal for US companies to engage in corruption abroad. It was passed in 1977. As a contrast, consider that German companies were still taking tax deductions for foreign bribes until 2002[0].
There are, in other words, very obvious regional differences. Additionally, there have been rather drastic changes along the temporal dimension, as well: Eastern Europe and Asia, for example, have come a long way over the last thirty years. Italy, original inventor of the Mafia, is solidly average these days, probably more similar to Germany or the UK than to its own past.
So, logically, if levels of corruption are different, that shows that equating all politics with corruption is wrong, and it demands at least some nuance or your criticism becomes entirely decoupled from reality and therefore no longer a useful tool to improve anything.
If, as a politician or bureaucrat, all you ever hear are superficial "everything-is-terrible" accusations completely devoid of any connection to anything you are actually doing, you will pretty soon just start engaging in that sort of activity: your public image cannot get any worse, anyway.
And people growing up in a society with these believes will start their careers in politics or business with such assumptions, and act accordingly.[1]
[0]: yes, it's true that some corrupt practices have simply been legalized in the US. But that's a failure of the voting public, and it's still better because it's known. And yes, the illegal stuff is making a comeback, considering the current President is both on record as supporting a repeal of FCPA, as well as having good reasons to do so
[1]: Of note, AOC observed not too long ago that before being elected to congress, she expected the corruption to be transactional, i. e. money for something in explicit quid-pro-quo. As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.
I think this is much worse in the long run. The people who are lobbied and the people who lobby become the same.
Some this can’t be avoided, some of it can, despite relationships, if people stick to principles and also balance the requirements of all their constituencies.
> So the solution is don’t have human relationships?
No. The solution is probably that the politicians need to be more choosy about who they form human relationships with. They should probably exchange all the time they spend with paid lobbyists for more time with their constituents and relatively unbiased experts.
Politics _is_ lying, stealing and corruption.
> This article is fundamentally based on the fact that there is a lot of variance in the amount of illegal activity in business and politics (and life generally) between countries: the Scandinavian countries are universally considered to be pretty close to corruption-free.
See Assange's case.
>Eastern and Southern Europe are a bit worse, parts of Africa and South America are really bad, and Asia in the middle. The US, contrary to popular opinion, has also long been ahead of most other countries, and even been the driving international force against corruption through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
You contradict yourself. See bellow.
> That law made it illegal for US companies to engage in corruption abroad. It was passed in 1977. As a contrast, consider that German companies were still taking tax deductions for foreign bribes until 2002[0].
Well, Microsoft and HP had no problem to use corruption in Eastern Europe.
> There are, in other words, very obvious regional differences. Additionally, there have been rather drastic changes along the temporal dimension, as well: Eastern Europe and Asia, for example, have come a long way over the last thirty years. Italy, original inventor of the Mafia, is solidly average these days, probably more similar to Germany or the UK than to its own past.
Of course there are differences. Corruption is country specific.
> So, logically, if levels of corruption are different, that shows that equating all politics with corruption is wrong, and it demands at least some nuance or your criticism becomes entirely decoupled from reality and therefore no longer a useful tool to improve anything.
> If, as a politician or bureaucrat, all you ever hear are superficial "everything-is-terrible" accusations completely devoid of any connection to anything you are actually doing, you will pretty soon just start engaging in that sort of activity: your public image cannot get any worse, anyway.
> And people growing up in a society with these believes will start their careers in politics or business with such assumptions, and act accordingly.[1]
> [0]: yes, it's true that some corrupt practices have simply been legalized in the US. But that's a failure of the voting public, and it's still better because it's known. And yes, the illegal stuff is making a comeback, considering the current President is both on record as supporting a repeal of FCPA, as well as having good reasons to do so
> [1]: Of note, AOC observed not too long ago that before being elected to congress, she expected the corruption to be transactional, i. e. money for something in explicit quid-pro-quo. As she noticed, lobbying in the US is really more of a social process, where politicians aren't directly bought, but spent a lot of time with lobbyists. And familiarity, as always, breeds sympathy.
It is wrong if you're talking about the space of any potential political system, but in the context of US federal politics it's largely correct. I think many people have the cause backwards: You don't have a cabal of corrupt people who are subverting and breaking a noble system. You've got a broken system which rewards and elevates those willing to lie and steal, which leads to the most successful politicians being those willing to lie and steal. They subtly adjust the system and expectations to reward their own behaviors, which makes it easier for the next cycle of more greedy sociopaths to rise to the top.
This is why the solution isn't just electing the right people in November. If, somehow, AOC or Bernie or whoever your chosen 'ideal uncorrupted candidate' did get elected, that wouldn't mean we'd solved the problem of lying and stealing in US politics, it would just self-correct after a few voting cycles. The really hard problem is developing a political system that has a feedback loop maintaining and supporting the desired behaviors which can't become (using the word literally) corrupted.
But just to play devils advocate, politicians spending time in the company of subject matter experts is a good, not a bad thing and AOC could use a bit more of that and a little less wishes and dreams.
I can't help but think to ask where do you live where libel actually results in that? From US perspective criminal libel is just too exploitable to allow as a criminal offense instead of a tort with claims of damages. The chilling effect of "jail for calling a serial rapist a rapist or the corruot corrupt" is just too great to be accsptable. It might be related to the Alien and Sedition act abuses and backlash (notably a case where of the first congressman elected while in jail and unable to campaign after his only failed defense for a critical publication amounted to "This law is blatantly unconstitutional."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23062531