by Matt Barr

When government gives you a culture of corruption, make culture of corruption-ade

The blogosphere is exercised over this newly-discovered "culture of corruption" in government. Clearly, we need to clean house in Washington and elect more people who aren't drunk with power and willing to flout the law to get their way. Right?

Not so fast, Mr. Nader. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Pull back for a second. In general, do you trust government? There are plenty of people who answer yes, or more likely these days, yes if the government is made up mostly of Democrats (or Republicans). This is a perfectly sensible position if you believe:

• candidates for office internalize the principles their party says it stands for,
• those principles are compatible with practical governance, and
• once elected, those candidates will do what they said they'd do when they ran.

It's not very sensible, in other words.

There are plenty of people -- most, I'd venture -- who would answer "it depends," not on who's been elected but what we're supposed to be trusting them with. You might trust the government to conduct foreign policy but not run a Medicaid program. To bomb Baghdad but not evacuate New Orleans. But I mean in general. If pressed, and honest, everyone can answer the question "in general, do you trust government?" yes or no.

The people who answer "no" are divided into two groups.

One believes that human beings have innate dignity, and can't legitimately be ruled by anyone but themselves. Because of the need for organized, safe, civil society, exceptions are made if you can connect the dots from an action of the government back to some implied consent on the part of the governed. The received version of the ethos of the Founding Fathers places them in this camp. They certainly said they were, in the egalitarian language of the Declaration and preamble to the Constitution.

If human beings all have this innate dignity, that means so do the people getting elected to government. This, of course, flies in the face of the evidence. But as a way to structure a worldview, this one isn't bad. It got a country founded. (Even if the Founding Fathers didn't believe a word they said or wrote, what they said and wrote was how they sold it.) It might not get you very far these days, but you'll be happy.

The other group, which actually has met people, believes that putting anyone but themselves in charge of anything is a bad idea, particularly if they're on the receiving end, owing to the corruptibility and ineptitude of others. And themselves; though these people usually don't run for office, so it never comes up. We still have to have things organized, safe and civil, though, so you want to make sure you elect the right type of person.

The type that is selfless, committed to serving others, with due deference to the public trust? Again, those in this camp, and by now you've guessed I'm in it, have met people, and can tell you no such person exists. If one seems to exist, the surest way to get him to cut it out with the selfless act is to elect him to government.

No, you want to elect the type of people who sweat, pant and otherwise secrete over the idea of being elected to something. This accomplishes a couple things. It ensures to the best extent possible, which isn't ever much, that once elected they'll do what's necessary to get re-elected, which is often what most of his constituents want him to do. Also, it removes him from the pool of people you might have to deal with on a daily basis. Since most Congresspersons are lawyers, all the better.

Power-hungry, corrupt, selfish people make the best governors (small 'g') and legislators. They're generally transparent. I know of no serious person who's been fooled into believing the Senate is full of statesmen and the House is the People's Chamber. Start electing the kind of people you want to be in charge and you might start giving them the benefit of the doubt. (You see this happen sometimes, especially this century, if you catch my drift, in the presidency.)

If power-hungry, corrupt, selfish governors and legislators don't do what their constituents want them to do so as to get re-elected, the other alternative will not be doing something unpopular but right, it will be doing something unpopular but a felony. You might object that we want people in government doing what's unpopular but right, to which I say, then you don't want a President and a legislature, you want a king. If you want your government to be popularly elected, then you have to incentivize them to do what's popular, not what you and you alone, or you and a minority, think is right. That's crazy talk.

It's your obligation in that situation, by the way, to convince people you're right, making what's right popular. Failing that, which you usually will, you can wait till the popular thing happens and everyone realizes it was a stupid idea. Which, happily, describes how representative democracy works. If the Supreme Court hasn't ruled in the meantime that you're not allowed to vote on it anymore, you can change it. Stupidity is democracy's most reliable agent of change.

I am not saying, by the way, that in every election you should vote for the person who wants the most to be elected. In fact, on the micro level, the most enjoyment you're likely to get out of an election in which, let's face it, your vote isn't going to mean much of anything is rooting for the guy who wants so badly to win to fall on his face. Election analysts after the last two presidential elections haven't given this dynamic near the respect it deserves.

But structurally, things should be set up so that the right incentives are in place. And so that there aren't ever, under any circumstances, term limits. Term limits remove about the only reliable incentive for a politician to do what his constituents want him to do, empower entrenched civil servant bureaucrats and lobbyists, and thwart the popular will, which is what we're supposed to be unthwarting with all the elections and things. And purely from a justice standpoint, politicians should be free to keep seeking re-election until they're indicted.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
clean+government