> 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 po

> 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.