4 ms·

If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on t

by lisper 3y ago

If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. And no, I see no evidence that Biden has done that.

lapcat 3y ago
> If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.
- lisper 3y ago
  The dictionary definition of "corrupt" is "Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved". The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. Words are only useful insofar as they allow you to draw distinctions between different concepts. Your definition (and it is yours -- you may not have invented the word, but you did advance one particular definition) isn't useful because it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United. On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human".
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Agreed. > Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Agreed. > Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. That's where I disagree, and again, "legal" is irrelevant if the lawmakers themselves are corrupt. There's a massive difference between legal and ethical. That's the whole purpose of corrupting lawmakers, to get them to write the laws in your favor. > it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United You appear to misunderstand Citizens United, which applies to independent expenditures, not to direct campaign contributions. [EDIT:] Besides, Joe Biden joined the US Senate in 1973. The Citizens United decision in 2010 is not temporarily available to him as an excuse and has nothing to do with whether he was a paid tool of the financial industry. > On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human". You can not run for office. I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt.
    - lisper 3y ago
      > You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. (Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt?) > I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt. That's true. But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. Aside from allowing vastly more money into the process, which is of course bad in itself, how do you think Citizens United changed or changes the nature of the corruption of individual politicians? As I mentioned, Biden joined the US Senate in 1973, decades before Citizens United. Legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions has been around forever. Unless you're claiming, implausibly, that politicians somehow weren't corrupted by campaign contributions until 2010, I'm unclear why Citizens United is relevant to our (semantic?) disagreement. > Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt? Deeply. > But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in. Agreed. Perhaps the only real difference here is that I'm willing to admit the unfortunate, inconvenient truth that most of our representatives are corrupt. It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, "You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption". But I don't buy that. You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election. There's a common refrain among Democrats that the Democratic politicians are always just doing the best they can under the political circumstances, they mean well, but they can't actually do significant things to help the people they represent, because of... reasons >mumble< >mumble<. And I don't believe that junk for a second. Politics tends to attract a certain type of ladder-climber who is willing to throw away any principles, if they had any principles in the first place, to achieve power and notoriety. It's not necessarily a route to great financial fortune (though sometimes it can be after leaving office, see for example Bill Clinton), but it's a route to great power, and money is power anyway, so those are just two different ways of achieving fundamentally the same goal.

by lisper 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.

lisper 3y ago
The dictionary definition of "corrupt" is "Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved". The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. Words are only useful insofar as they allow you to draw distinctions between different concepts. Your definition (and it is yours -- you may not have invented the word, but you did advance one particular definition) isn't useful because it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United. On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human".
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Agreed. > Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Agreed. > Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. That's where I disagree, and again, "legal" is irrelevant if the lawmakers themselves are corrupt. There's a massive difference between legal and ethical. That's the whole purpose of corrupting lawmakers, to get them to write the laws in your favor. > it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United You appear to misunderstand Citizens United, which applies to independent expenditures, not to direct campaign contributions. [EDIT:] Besides, Joe Biden joined the US Senate in 1973. The Citizens United decision in 2010 is not temporarily available to him as an excuse and has nothing to do with whether he was a paid tool of the financial industry. > On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human". You can not run for office. I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. (Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt?) > I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt. That's true. But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. Aside from allowing vastly more money into the process, which is of course bad in itself, how do you think Citizens United changed or changes the nature of the corruption of individual politicians? As I mentioned, Biden joined the US Senate in 1973, decades before Citizens United. Legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions has been around forever. Unless you're claiming, implausibly, that politicians somehow weren't corrupted by campaign contributions until 2010, I'm unclear why Citizens United is relevant to our (semantic?) disagreement. > Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt? Deeply. > But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in. Agreed. Perhaps the only real difference here is that I'm willing to admit the unfortunate, inconvenient truth that most of our representatives are corrupt. It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, "You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption". But I don't buy that. You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election. There's a common refrain among Democrats that the Democratic politicians are always just doing the best they can under the political circumstances, they mean well, but they can't actually do significant things to help the people they represent, because of... reasons >mumble< >mumble<. And I don't believe that junk for a second. Politics tends to attract a certain type of ladder-climber who is willing to throw away any principles, if they had any principles in the first place, to achieve power and notoriety. It's not necessarily a route to great financial fortune (though sometimes it can be after leaving office, see for example Bill Clinton), but it's a route to great power, and money is power anyway, so those are just two different ways of achieving fundamentally the same goal.