Corrupt notions

“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.” Lord Acton

Up in Canada the Liberal government has been forced to face the voters in the wake of a major corruption scandal. Down in the ‘States’, with a mid term poll looming, federal politicians are mired in a swamp of allegations and revelations.
In both cases there is a sad, modern refrain of Acton’s words reverberating: ‘whoever you vote for you will elect a politician.’
The problem, at least electorally, is not the core corruption but rather the expectation that voters can distinguish between clean politicians and those who are corrupt. This is asked in a culture where corruption is notoriously not the sole preserve of any one political group.
Given that corruption is non-partisan and voters are increasingly cynical, leading political figures are on dangerous ground politicizing corruption.
It would require a particularly astute electorate and an extremely skilled politician to successfully, almost surgically isolate perceptions of corruption to specific players.
The reality is that voters are not sufficiently engaged to make what are fairly fine distinctions between members of the ‘political class’. There are simply too many easy distractions to taking a real interest in the seeming complexities of politics.

Up in Canada, when the Conservative’s Leader Stephen Harper predicates an election on corruption issues the voter hears one overriding message; politicians are corrupt. That is not his core message, which is to label the Liberals, merely what people hear.
In response the governing Liberals are quick to point out the ethical lapses of previous Conservative regimes.
Down in ‘The States’ it is even more complex, because the anti-corruption charge is being led largely from within the Republican Party itself. Presidential aspirants to ordinary representatives are busy attempting to capitalize on or distance themselves from the mess.
Newt Gingrich has been quick to come out, guns blazing, to position himself for 2008. Perhaps Gingrich can rely on the poor memories of voters, although in a serious race there will be no shortage of reminders that he has not only been seen to be shady, he in fact credited with introducing the ‘pay to play’ culture.

The danger of politicizing corruption is twofold.
The first aspect is that resources are distracted from long term resolutions to ethical gaps in the system. Corruption becomes just another part of the game, as controlled and played out by the ‘political class’.
The second aspect is the message politicians are sending out to a barely engage ‘voting class’; politicians are corrupt. True, that is not the intended message, but it is the one people hear when they are only half listening.
It is far easier to craft a negative ‘power message’ than a positive one. Voters are now conditioned to a few seconds of edited comment; often the only message of sufficient simplicity they are exposed to.
In reality, voters will respond negatively to constant attempts to gain political capital from campaign based corruption assaults. The voter might not be engaged but they are not idiots.
The whole issue has been canvassed for long enough now, politically, that the voter has a right to ask why there has been no bi-partisan assault on the whole culture of corruption. Why is it talked about with such fervor but never acted on? Talk is cheap and that talk makes the politicians appear increasingly cheap.
With Lord Acton’s charge ringing in our ears we might visit the potential actions required of politicians in our next posting.