Politics Corrupts

by Gus Ellis

American pundits are fond of quoting Lord Acton's dictum that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Our media also like to denounce certain special interests that lobby government and obtain favors and privileges.  The public is not far behind in its righteous indignation. But while the press and the public love to think of themselves as tireless foes of power and corruption, what neither cares to examine is the idea that the two are part and parcel of democracy, and that politics, democratic or otherwise, is inherently corrupt. Instead, they always try to locate the blame somewhere outside the system, in lobbyists, special interests, or pressure groups, or in some contemporary vice such as a lack of vision or public spirit.  These are the villains and vices corrupting the polis, the moneychangers defiling the temple, and the cynics tarnishing the democratic ideal.  But Acton was right and the pious partisans of democracy are wrong. Power corrupts democrats no less than dictators, legislators no less than lords, bureaucrats no less than autocrats. We need to face the reality that democracy is no ideal at all but only the black art of politics and power.  

The public and the press complain about lobbyists debasing democracy but refuse to ask why there are lobbyists. Why do lobbyists pursue legislators?  Americans overlook P.J. O'Rourke's truth that "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."  Is it any coincidence that as the powers of government have expanded, the number of lobbyist and trade groups locating in or visiting Washington has multiplied?  Legislators are not corrupted by lobbyists, they are corrupted by power.  But our guardians in the press and in the academies insist not on removing this power, but on trying to shield those in power by schemes such as the campaign-finance laws and ethics commissions. This blithely ignores the fact that much of the lobbying done is defensive lobbying by groups that seek not favors but simply peace from the attacks of their "representatives".  It is not philosopher-kings who must be protected from vested interests, but civilians who must be protected from the government.  Power in democracy means the authority to blackmail, extort, and to shakedown whatever group is vulnerable at the moment.  Hence, legislation and lobbying go hand-in-hand. But democracy cannot be blamed so we blame the victims - the gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the oil lobby, and anyone else who thinks they might have rights.   

When politicians are not blackmailing one group, they are bribing another.  Our crusading press is eager to expose corruption when contractors hand money to politicians to obtain public works projects or when there are conflicts of interest in awarding government contracts.  But if candidates offer voting blocs billions of dollars and voters take the bait, somehow no one sees bribery or any conflict of interest.  But why should organized collective plunder be condoned any more than backroom conniving?  Because democratic ideology sees no fundamental evil in representative government, power and corruption go not only unchecked but also unacknowledged. 

It should be obvious that democracy corrupts not only those in power but ordinary citizens.  This can be seen every week in the roving reporter columns that appear in many newspapers.  A journalist typically asks citizens what the government should do about some social problem.  The person interviewed usually opines that the government should pass some law, spend some money, and "do something about the problem".  Rarely does either the reporter or the man in the street ask if the government has the right to force a solution on others.  John Q. Public is encouraged not just to express himself but also to inflict his wishes on others in the name of the public interest, the common good, or some other malicious euphemism. That the property and rights of others should be up for public debate is rarely questioned.  Democracy doesn't just mean making one's voice heard, it means making one's preferences binding on everyone. Although most people consider themselves "tolerant" folk with a "live and let live" attitude, very few are tolerant when they are asked to legislate. Everyman thinks it perfectly normal that he can propose and the government can impose a tax or regulation on his neighbors.  Almost everything is fair game, and citizens who wouldn't take an apple off their neighbor's tree show no compunction about robbing the entire community.  We are all lobbyists now, and bullying and banditry are a way of life in democratic politics.         

When defenders of the democratic way are not proposing an endless series of reforms to end corruption, they are preaching the need for a new attitude, a more altruistic, civil attitude that will pursue the public interest.  But this plainly ignores the ethical questions about political power.  What right do legislators have to define and pursue the public interest?  Are we free to sacrifice individuals or groups to the public interest or public appetite?  Don't most people have different ideas about what the public interest is? History plainly shows that when the public interest is the object of government, groups will compete to proclaim themselves as vox populi.  We have more "non-partisan" or "bipartisan" "public interest" groups than ever before, but the system is as corrupt as ever.  Calling a lobbyist a public interest group does not change the nature of the game. 

At some level, people recognize that it is democracy that is at fault but language and conceptual confusion seem to get in the way of admitting the truth.  At every turn, the public, the press, and politicians betray their contempt for the system.  Whenever someone does something stupid or base, people say that it is just "politics".  Whenever an opponent attacks, political candidates will accuse them of "playing politics".  Reformers are always proposing new bureaucracies and commissions to put matters "above politics".  Whenever the electorate grows enthusiastic about something the intelligentsia despises, writers and commentators accuse politicians of pandering to voters and demagoguery.  Yet all these criticisms target things that are inseparable from democracy.  But few will question the power of democratic governments.  The American people hold to an amazing contradiction that democracy is sacred but politics is sordid. Apparently, despite what we see every day, politics and democracy are unrelated.  Democracy is not to blame, we hear - the cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy.  Almost all is fair in politics and war, but we are constantly told that things would get better if only more people "got involved" - in politics!  Apparently, power corrupts but the pursuit of power does not.  We half-believe Lord Acton's axiom, but we believe it was meant for kings and czars, not representative governments. After all, our executive and lawmakers do not wield absolute power. On and on it goes. Democracy is a never-ending series of rationalizations that seek to obscure the naked power of democratic politics.  Democratic might makes right.  It has not only corrupted us but also thoroughly confused us. 

The world has changed much since Lord Acton passed away a century ago. Kings have fallen, communist and fascist regimes have risen and collapsed, and the democratic movement has nearly triumphed.  But liberty remains distant.  We have made the world safe for democracy but we have not made it safe for freedom.  We remain half-slave and half-free. And we wonder at the corruption that surrounds us.

January 19, 2002