I mean it’s kind of expected, really, that the denizens of our pedestals eventually weather and crack, and in the end are ground into the gravel that paves the path of civilization. And it sounds to be a good and reliable human algorithm: with increased power comes increased and irresistible ability to skirt personal responsibility. But is that really how it has to play out? Must all paladins fall to temptation? Is there really a hardy seed of evil in all of us that will inevitably sprout when watered by opportunity?
Or perhaps there is an even simpler explanation: The inherently corrupt seek power because it is an irresistible light to a world without personal responsibility, whereas the true blue among us find no charm in a life centered upon directing the will of others. In other words, “Those who seek to lead are the least fit to do so.”
A long time ago a group of coworkers and I were discussing political power and how only the corrupt seek office and surely it would work if instead of elections we just dropped in a dedicated and hardworking individual for a specified term. A contract leader so to speak.
As luck would have it we had in the office a particular lady who was a hard line rule follower, hard worker and a compassionate person.
In the course of a 30 minute discussion we managed to break her. It wasn’t even real money and she was giving out jobs and making new rules to benefit those closest to her. Apparently when you give a rules follower the ability to make the rules they go nuts.
When someone has absolute power they tend to get surrounded by yes-men and sycophants who, out of fear, will tell them what they want to hear. Even if the person starts out honorable, eventually they will begin believing their own press of their own infallibility. They might not get corrupted to the point of evilness, but corrupted they will.
The problem with absolute power is that a ruler, no matter how benevolent, will inevitably trample upon the will of some of his/ her subjects. If that faction is very small or the infractions minor and not difficult to bear then they would be remembered fondly. As the faction grows or the constraint grow more difficult to live under then it could be said that they grow more corrupt.
The problem isn’t so much that power corrupts - it’s that power tends to insulate its wielder from criticism. Thus, if you do start to become corrupt, you have less assistance in noticing and correcting the problem.
it’s not a matter of only the “corrupt” people seeking power. It’s much more a matter of who will actually end up successful in the quest. If the system is so setup that “corrupt” people can rise to power much easier than others, then they will be overrepresented there.
That’s not to say that even the nicest individuals are not likely to get corrupted to some extent given power. But for somebody like Calvin Coolidge there is a lot further to go down that road than for somebody like Bill “meaning of the words ‘is’ is” Clinton.
I don’t see why it can’t be both; Power corrupts (or at least fertilises corruption), but the already-corrupt also seek power.
There are, I suppose, those who are incorruptible, but as well as those who are corrupt since before they had power, there is a category in the middle consisting of the not-yet-corrupt - kept honest by societal constraint, fear of the consequences, or other circumstance - power affords the relaxation of those constraints keeping them honest.
But surely someone typically has the intent to blow thing up before learning how to make explosives. If someone with a good heart were to study bomb-making just out of idle curiosity, he would be more likely to use that knowledge to disable bombs, should the opportunity present itself. He may even be inspired to pursue a career as a bomb disposal technician.
I voted it’s not that simple. I think people are confusing corruption with benefits and favoritism. I wouldn’t consider someone who says give friends/relatives raises and cushy jobs corrupt as I would consider someone corrupt who refused to hire certain people for ANY job despite how qualified they were. Thems the breaks, yes men, friends, friends with benefits (the office hoe), and relatives are always going to be higher than moral magee. Now, if Moral MaGee isn’t allowed a job I’d think hey that guy’s corrupt. Why would you want a position of power if you got no perks from it? There’s no reason to be (or have) a boss, if everyone is treated exactly the same.
I don’t think power corrupts good people. I think power corrupts those who a ill suited and those who have a good facade. So, really think about how good that person was if a little power corrupted them.
I do notice that choosen to run are usually the most ill suited. I think the better question is why aren’t people choosing a good person who is also right for the job? We want the popular person, not Moral MaGee. Then we can complain about corrupt our choice was.
Of course - but again, I think there are three categories:
Already corrupt (can’t wait to hear about bomb-making, in order to make use of it)
Incorruptible (you described above)
Corruptible (kept honest for now by circumstance, in this case, to include ignorance)
Let’s put it this way: enjoy the conceptual debate, but on a pragmatic basis, assume that power corrupts absolutely and manage your own interests accordingly within that context.
The human species’ survival strategy is adaptability; we progress through making mistakes. Power gives a leader access to the opportunity to make more mistakes - based on good or corrupt intentions - that have greater implications. Do the math.