28 ms·

It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyal

• tshaddox 1y ago
  In that case, it would be neat if corruption were illegal!
  • ty6853 1y ago
    Or just more accessible, so the average person can get a piece of the benefits that cartels and megacorp executives already get.
    • supriyo-biswas 1y ago
      Voila, we've ended up with a low trust society with "petty corruption", which is generally considered harmful as it establishes something about that society that cannot be easily corrected unlike "grand corruption."
• alephnerd 1y ago
  Vote banks and patronage politics has always been a thing in the US, especially at the local and state level. The main difference is a significant portion of governance was temporarily de-politicized in the 1960s-90s period as leadership on both sides of the aisle had formative unifying experiences during the World Wars and the Korean War, but has been re-politicized now that activism on both sides of the aisle has resurged and social polarization has taken root. The expansion of executive powers also played a role in this erosion, as both the judicial and legislative branch increasingly devolved their prerogative to the executive, leaving it much more open to political tampering and reducing the power of checks and balances. There's a reason LKY in SG, Yoshida Shigeru and Sato Eisaku in Japan, and François Mitterrand in France tried to decentralize power to a semi-independent civil service.
  • pessimist 1y ago
    Low-level corruption at the local/state level is related but its effects are different though. In fact even today low level corruption in the US is extremely low by global standards - you can't bribe your way to a drivers license openly, for example. I'm sure it happens but it's not common or openly boasted about (parts of CA or DC could be an exception). Here the corruption is openly displayed as a kind of peacock-tail to the beneficiaries.
    • alephnerd 1y ago
      I'd rather not have a whole discussion over this atm (I'm out rn - maybe later), but I recommend reading Yuen Yuen Ang's paper on "Unbundling Corruption" - there are different typographies of what "corruption" is, and some nations have always had a similar type of corruption compared to others. In addition, low level corruption is orthogonal to grand corruption as can be seen in Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and the US. Finally, Indian public discourse around corruption is non-targeted, and fails to contextualize significant institutional differences in how local, state, and federal governments operate in India compared to other states (be they democratic like the US or authoritarian like China). [Feel free to add questions or points of contention, but I won't be able to reply quickly]
      • pessimist 1y ago
        Fine, I don't disagree with anything you point out. However where we differ is that I believe identity politics is the trigger factor here, all the other changes you mention (loss of balance of power etc) are downstream of this.
        • lern_too_spel 1y ago
          Your causal diagram is backwards. Identity politics isn't the path to corruption. Corrupt politicians like Trump use identity politics to gain power to practice their corruption. Nobody who wanted to bring back Christian hegemony and re-oppress minority groups is cheering that Trump is threatening to take away contracts from Musk because "their side is winning."
• bobxmax 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • bobxmax 1y ago
      That's naive and you know it. A massive drive for him was electing the first black president. A less, but still not-insignificant drive was for Hillary as the first female president.
      • Retric 1y ago
        I’d be shocked if Hilary had a net benefit being a female candidate. We’ve had 2 chances to elect a female president and they both lost the general election with not that great turnout. John McCain’s VP was female during 08 and he lost by a huge margin.
        • bobxmax 1y ago
          Hillary and Kamala got boosts from being a woman. They just had a massive drop because of, especially in Hillary's case, being deeply unlikeable. Kamala probably wins in 2016.
          • Retric 1y ago
            > Hillary and Clinton got boosts It’s Hillary and Kamala Harris. I’m not saying they don’t get some voters from being women, the point is they also lost votes from being women. I think a rotting corps might have won in 2016, but 4 years later vs a women and suddenly he’s doing great.
            • bobxmax 1y ago
              Kamala lost because of Biden, who somehow was even less likeable than Hillary by the end.
• clumsysmurf 1y ago
  > corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing. I think the end goal is domination. From https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 : It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination. It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect. It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point. For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue — the greatest. https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hypocrisy-and-fascism-2018-08-12 https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hypocrisy-and-fascism-2018-0...
  • dralley 1y ago
    >It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. For my friends - everything, for my enemies - the law.
    • pinkmuffinere 1y ago
      For my true friends, champagne! For my sham friends, true pain.
      • kennyadam 1y ago
        Close, but the correct version has better wordplay: "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends."
    • AlexandrB 1y ago
      I used to love this pithy quote but reflecting on it more recently this doesn't seem like something limited to fascists or fascism. Indeed, this kind of thinking is used by those of any political leaning when ideology becomes more important than principles. An obvious example is the USSR.
• natmaka 1y ago
  > "we" are winning and "they" are losing This is a very important rule stated by the War Nerd: 'Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics.' A small human group is compatible with this tribal behavior because the bulk of actions (or at worst their effects) are quickly perceptible to everyone. The larger the group, the less each person understands what is happening, even the effects of what he does.
  • pengaru 1y ago
    I don't know wtf War Nerd is, but tribalism being alive and well is nowhere near a new/novel observation worth noting anyone pointed out.
    • palmfacehn 1y ago
      Agree that it is not a novel observation, but it is worth noting here. The discussion would be less ridiculous if there were less tribalism.
    • natmaka 1y ago
      It is about more than "being alive and well" but being omnipresent and determinant. Stating it is useful because many neglect (or maybe even ignore) this fact. The way the War Nerd puts it is IMHO the best.
• petre 1y ago
  I see it as a continuation of the American Civil War in politics. There was always this attitude but now people are more redicalized, so it's more obvious.
  • lotsofpulp 1y ago
    It seemed more subdued during the 1990s/2000s, until a black guy became President, and a good one at that.
    • FireBeyond 1y ago
      And then the Democrats wanted to put forward a... a... a woman, too!
• 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing. So how could one design a political system so this behavior doesn't emerge / is not incentivized?
  • Atreiden 1y ago
    Get rid of FPTP and the Electoral College that enables a two-party stranglehold. If a vote for a third party wasn't a wasted vote, we could see nuanced parties and politicians emerge that don't have to tow a party line.
    • secos 1y ago
      Ranked Choice Voting goes a long way to solving this as well.
      • t_mann 1y ago
        Does it? Could you explain which mechanism you suggest using? Because the main results from social choice theory about ranked choice voting that come to mind seem to be all about impossibility of fair elections (eg Arrow) or even paradoxical situations such as cyclic preferences (eg Condorcet).
        • pornel 1y ago
          These kinds of perfectionism complaints keep the status quo of FPTP, which is the worst of them all.
        • cardiffspaceman 1y ago
          Since none of the proposed replacements can be perfect according to the theory, let’s just stick with the worst one. Big fat /s
    • trueismywork 1y ago
• BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  > It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing. In history textbooks, it's known as the spoils system.
  • ethbr1 1y ago
    For those unaware of ~1900 US political history and how the spoils system was dismantled through political will: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_United_States#Reform_efforts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_...
    • EasyMark 1y ago
      hopefully this time around it will go a little quicker, aka one term. project 2025 specifically pointed out all "disloyal" government employees should be kicked out and only those who bent a knee to trump should replace them, whatever their actual merit and ability to occupy the position
      • more_corn 1y ago
        But is his plan to only stay one term?
      • FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
        The goal is to make sure the Republicans never lose another election ever again, no matter how. So yeah no it won’t last only one term.
• burnte 1y ago
  > It is horrifying to see this attitude take root in my adopted land. Agreed, and I was born here. I was taught we expressly want to reject those things, and now it's all the fashion. It feels like a temper tantrum from a third of the electorate, a rejection of adulthood and reason.
  • hinkley 1y ago
    It's because we tried to take down the 'no girls or brown people' sign. All of this is a long temper tantrum about Obama and then Mrs Clinton, emphasis on the Mrs. If I had a time machine I would take documentation back and convince someone that we need a few more Old White Guys to let the GOP's base unrustle their jimmies for a bit. I predicted something like this coming back in the late 90's, not that anyone should have listened to me about civics. I say 'like this', but... not like this. And if I had someone would have requested "wellness checks" (which is American for 'check to see if we can have him involuntarily committed to a mental facility) on my behalf. My notion back then was that the vibe of the country was such that a black man would need to be elected before a white woman was a serious contender. But that there would have to be a delay. When you rush progress you can spin out. And fuck if we haven't spun out. Maybe they'll go for a whip-smart gay man next term? Who knows.
• kamaal 1y ago
  >>I witnessed this up close in India where parties openly exist to benefit certain constituencies based on caste, language, religion and so on. +1 As an Indian, classic definition of corruption here is something that other people do. When our own do it, its not really called corruption, its more intelligent work done to make our people win. Similar term is appeasement. It kind of means if people I hate are winning, they must be doing bad things or cheating. It is impossible that people I hate should do well in life.