Is corruption less tolerated now in America than it used to be? That is the impression I get from fictional accounts and stories of the Gilded Age. If we are less tolerant, why? Indignation over Watergate? Corruption seems to be endemic in Mexico and various third world countries, but why is this the case? Is it the case? If so, what types of things could change it? I know this is a bit speculative, but try your best. 
Thanks,
Rob
I think that there’s more publicity surrounding such incidents these days, and opponents are quick to jump on any flaws in a politician’s record.
U.S. corruption takes a different form than Mexican corruption, but I wouldn’t say that one is more “endemic” than the other. While a Mexican politician might get rich through a no-bid highway contract adjudicated to his brother-in-law’s newly created firm, his U.S. counterpart will get rich by earmarking projects to political donors, or by buying up property in advance of a zoning change, or by engaging in state charity to support wealthy businesses (such as building stadiums with public funds to the specific benefit of team investors).
Is the NCLB/Ignite nexus or the Iraq War/Halliburton nexus less corrupt than rent-taking traffic cops?
Except for the brother-in-law part, isn’t this essentially the same accusation that’s been leveled at the current US presidential administration? That they’ve awarded no-bid contracts to firms with connections.
Reformers started fighting corruption in government back in the 19th century after most city and state governments had been taken over by political machines. The machines usually owned the congressmen and Senators as well.
The reformers came from both parties, because in various cities either the Democrats or the Republicans were the ones with the power. The reformers took over the other party to fight them. Some of the third party movements, especially the Progressive Party, had platforms that included anti-machine planks. The referendum, the initiative, recall, city manager (i.e. non-partisan professional instead of mayoral) government, all came out of these movements.
There was also a move to the secret ballot. With open ballots the machines knew who everybody voted for, so they could reward or retaliate against votes. The secret ballot prevented this, for the most part. (It’s also true that voting percentages were down with secret ballots because there was no way to get the easy reward. Some historians argue that this was done deliberately to get the lower classes that supported the machines to stop voting.)
Although the reformers gains were always short-lived - they got the really corrupt crooks out or in jail but didn’t give the masses a good reason to continue voting for them - they forced the worst abuses to stop and made the politicians more sophisticated in their graft.
What truly killed the machines, though, was the death of the city in the 1950s. When the suburban population grew larger than the city population it became impossible for the machine to maintain control.
Politics went wholesale instead of retail, meaning that you had to attract the support of dispersed masses through advertising rather than personal contact. This also made it easier for outsiders to challenge for control. Individual outsiders can be crooked, as we’ve seen again and again, but the kind of institutional crime that the machines did routinely is far harder today than it used to be.
The mainstream media has helped this despite the canards thrown at it. Newspapers used to be totally partisan and controlled by or in bed with the machines. Gradually the neutral style pioneered by the New York Times and the growing professionalism of the journalist meant that newspapers were harder to bring in line and more likely to expose what politicians were doing, who was giving them money, and whether their votes or influence was being bought. Despite the bleating of certain bloggers this was and is a good thing. More scrutiny means that politicians have to be crazy to try to get away with anything. Again, many individual politicians are crazy and so they do try. But they get caught and their careers immediately end.
When people say that politics today is basically more honest and open today than it’s ever been, believe them. No average voter today could imagine or stomach the level of corruption that was standard in almost every city, town, village, county, or statehouse in the country, not to mention Congress, a mere 100 years ago.
Moved to GD.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
How does this make the politician rich? I can see how it might enrich the people who got the earmark, but it gives no money to the politician.
I believe this sort of thing is illegal, though I may be wrong.
Again, how does the politician benefit financially from this?
For recent examples, see Duke Cunningham (incredibly lopsided real estate transfers, usufruct of property, etc., in exchange for steered business), or thei Hired Truck program in Chicago (city employees getting direct “corporate gifts” in exchange for steering carrier contracts.
But not-too-vaguely similar to what Dennis Hastert did with the Prairie Parkway earmark.
One example that comes to mind: The City of Arlington contributed sales tax revenues to build a new Rangers stadium. The stadium operator was exempt from the school district tax. Previous team owner and then TX governor George W. Bush supported a bill that would continue the exemption should the team (a private enterprise) acquire the stadium built with public funds. The new owner was a Bush business partner, in whose REIT Bush still had a share.
That’s what I was getting at with the NCLB/Ignite reference.