Corruption in American politics and life

by Robert C. Brooks

[13] Political Science Quarterly, vol. xix (1904), p. 673.

[14] In his extremely interesting work on “The Anthracite Coal Communities,” Mr. Peter Roberts takes a rather dark view of the political morals of the coal counties of Pennsylvania (pp. 316-42, 355-58), but it is easy to recognise in his pages the emergence of political independence and higher forms of corruption which indicate better things for the future. “In the year 1897,” he writes, “the courts of Lackawanna, Luzerne, and Schuylkill, drafted a new set of rules to regulate the process of naturalising aliens, making it more difficult and expensive.—[The cost alone was increased from $2.00 to from $12.00 to $15.00, and applicants were compelled to engage the services of an attorney.]—The Sclav in this matter, as in all others which affect his material interests, moves in a practical manner that commends his business tact and condemns his political ethics. The applicants organise into political clubs, and prepare themselves for the examination. When they are ready they wait for the time of election until some aspirant for political honours comes round. A bargain is then made; if he secures them their naturalisation papers the club will vote for him. In this way a large number are pushed through, previous to the elections, at little expense to themselves.—The first lesson taught these men in the exercise of the franchise is that it is property having market value, which they sell to the highest bidder.” (pp. 44-45.)

“There are many brilliant young men rising among them [the Sclavs] who cherish political ambition, and they successfully lead their fellow countrymen to acquire the rights of citizenship in order to enhance their prospects and power in both municipal and county politics. They are gradually appropriating more and more of the spoils of office in municipalities and their power in county elections is annually increasing.”

“These people have both physical and intellectual qualities which will enrich the blood and brain of the nation, but the political ethics in vogue in our state are far from possessing a character likely to strengthen and elevate the moral nature of the Sclav. His leaders teach him cunning and give him samples of fraud and sharp practice which he is quick to copy. Venality is the common sin of our electors and the Sclav has been corrupted in the very inception of his political life in his adopted country.” (pp. 47-48.)

THE NATURE OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION

II
THE NATURE OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION

In the whole vocabulary of politics it would be difficult to point out any single term that is more frequently employed than the word “corruption.” Party orators and writers, journalists, “muck rakers,” and reformers all use it with the utmost freedom, and it occurs not uncommonly in the less ephemeral pages of political philosophers and historians. Transactions and conditions of very different kinds are stigmatised in this way, in many cases doubtless with entire justice; but apparently there is little disposition to inquire into the essential nature of corruption itself and to discriminate in the use of the word.

Detailed definitions of corrupt practices and bribery are, of course, to be found in every highly developed legal code, but these are scarcely broad enough to cover the whole concept as seen from the viewpoint of political science or ethics. The sanctions of positive law are applied only to those more flagrant practices which past experience has shown to be so pernicious that sentiment has crystallised into statutory prohibitions and adverse judicial decisions. Even within this comparatively limited circle clearness and precision are but imperfectly attained. Popular disgust is frequently expressed at the ineptitude of the law’s definitions and the deviousness of the law’s procedure, as a result of which prosecutions of notoriously delinquent officials, politicians, and contractors so often and so ignominiously fail in the courts. If once we step outside the circle of legality, however, we find extremely confused, conflicting, and even unfair states of moral opinion regarding corruption. Public anger at some exposed villainy of this sort is apt to be both blind and exacting. Reform movements directed against corrupt abuses are no more free than are regular political organisations from partisan misrepresentation and partisan passion. With all their faults, however, it is largely from such forces and movements that we must expect not only higher standards of public morality, but also a clearer and more comprehensive legislative and judicial treatment of corrupt practices in the future. For this reason it would seem to be desirable, if possible, to formulate some fairly definite concept of corruption, broader than the purely legal view of the subject and applicable in a general way to the protean forms which evil of this sort assumes in practice.

Certain verbal difficulties must first be cleared away. Chief among these, perhaps, is the extreme levity with which the word is bandied about. One word, indeed, is not sufficient, and a number of slang equivalents and other variants must needs be pressed into service: graft, boodle, rake-off, booty, loot, spoils, and so on. With all due recognition of recent achievements in the way of gathering and presenting evidence, it is lamentably apparent that charges of corruption are still very frequently brought forward, by party men and reformers alike, on slight grounds or no grounds at all, and also that in many of these cases no intention exists of pushing either accusation or defence to a point where a thorough threshing-out of the matter at issue is possible. In “practical politics” insinuations of the blackest character are made jestingly, and they are ignored or passed off with a shrug or a smile, provided only that they be not of too pointed or too personal a character. Very serious evils may follow reckless mudslinging of this sort. Even if the charges are looked upon as the natural and harmless exuberances of our current political warfare, their constant repetition tends to blur the whole popular conception of corruption. Insensibly the conviction gains ground that practices which are asserted to be so common can scarcely be wholly bad, since public life goes on without apparent change and private prosperity seems unaffected. If, on the other hand, the current accusations of corruption are to be taken at anything like their face value, it becomes difficult to avoid the pessimism that sees nothing but rottenness in our social arrangements and despairs of all constructive reform with present materials.

A second verbal point that demands attention is the metaphorical character of the word corruption. Even when it is distinctly qualified as political or business or social corruption, the suggestion is subtly conveyed of organic corruption and of everything vile and repugnant to the physical senses which the latter implies. It need not be charged that such implications are purposely cultivated: indeed they are so obvious and common that their use by this time has become a matter of habit. Witness in current writing the frequent juxtaposition of the word corruption, used with reference to social phenomena, with such words as slime, filth, sewage, stench, tainted, rottenness, gangrene, pollution, and the frequent comparison of those who are supposed to profit by such corruption to vultures, hyenas, jackals, and so on. Side by side with the levity already criticised we accordingly find a usage which, however exaggerated and rhetorical it may be, appears to indicate a strong popular feeling against what are deemed to be corrupt practices.