Beet
Atlas Star
Posts: 29,027
|
 |
« on: January 11, 2017, 03:21:28 PM » |
|
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.
|
