having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.



I often and for most of my voting life have heard people (voters) complain about 'corruption' in politics. However, we have a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people. I see politics as a reflection of the electorate. When/If we vote only about what we believe will end in our own personal gain, while disregarding or not caring the negative impacts it may impose upon OTHER people or groups, we are voting with corrupt hearts ourselves. So it may be something to consider when a politician makes us feel screwed over for gain to themself or to some other demographic, that we get what we deserve for voting with a complete willingness for some other person or group to be screwed over in our place.

Do you think 'corruption' in politics may be linked to the 'corruption' of the heart of the voter?

I think yes, and no. I don’t believe most people vote for their own personal agenda with a “screw those other guys” in mind.

But most of us do see our own beliefs as what is best for most everyone and probably vote their agenda honestly believing it’s what in the interest of their country, without fully understanding the position it puts others in when their party or candidate wins and acts.

Corruption in politics on all levels has led to the disenfranchising of ninety percent of the electorate.

Its common human behavior to act in one's own self interest.
It is personal discipline that allows individuals to act otherwise.

Politicians operate in a perpetual 'race' to win.
Including, but not limited to, dishonesty.

They are schemers. Every action is weighed to its effect on their goals.
They operate in a world of secrets, some which are dishonest.

I watched a movie where they developed a method to broadcast someone's every movement via audio/video signal to the public.
It would be a politician's nightmare if that happened in reality.
As a matter of fact, it would be a nightmare for nearly anyone.

The film I'm referring to is The Circle (2017) with Tom Hanks & Emma Watson.
Here's the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCOXARv6J9k

To blame the voter for the corruption in politics is ludicrous. The corruption in politics only causes disconnection from the political scene. This then causes anger at the incompetence of politics in general. Then the people either revolt or the put a politician in power THAT will tourture the political system with a version of themselves that appears to be on steroids...This makes the people who put that individual in power, very satisfied with their reciprocity.

I saw it. I felt it would be a nightmare. When I was younger and had that 'I have nothing to hide' mentality, I may have thought otherwise. But in my experience, I have learned there is a certain 'freedom' to having your own time, your own space, or your own ANYTHING when it comes to choices that you dont feel obligated to share with anyone else, let alone everyone else.

Its not so much to me a matter of whether I need to 'hide' anything, but how much of my life I want to feel more specifically mine instead of belong to everyone else.

I never do 'Blame', correlation and causation are separate things. It is like dating. If you start dating someone without boundary, it is not necessarily your 'fault' nor are you to 'blame' when that person tries to walk all over you, the final choice is still their own, BUT you certainly LAID out the option as if you welcomed that choice.

Similarly , when we vote while ONLY thinking that someone will be helpful to what we want even though we KNOW they intend a negative impact upon others, we invite the kind of person who will help certain groups and hurt others, because we lay the groundwork in our voting of an expectation that they do so. The only difference is that we expected to be the ones helped while OTHERS were negatively impacted.

Our corrupted and ego centered values invite and vote for people who will also have and be attracted to corruption and egocentrism. Negative people attract negative people, even if they arent the reason for their negativity. and positive people attract positive people even though they arent the reason for their positivity.

and similarly, imho, voters with corrupt and egocentric hearts will attract (and be attracted to) candidates who are corrupt and with egocentric hearts. and it doesnt seem to bother the voter as long as the corruption and egocentrism works in their favor. The 'corrupt' nature only really matters if it ends up working in favor of others INSTEAD of them.

I think Karma is working overtime these days. People get what they deserve.

Otherwise, I agree with you.
Good post.

I dont consider it corruption....sound a little high tone...How bout we just call it Karma and politics are getting what they have sown?.

I get it. that is why I started with the actual definition of the word, to make the point about those who practice it complaining about it.

That makes sense.

I wouldn't say the electorate are "corrupt" more "fickle", in order to make change it takes time and not just one term in office..

I would say yes, in a way... Look at all the Trump haters, that still can't see how corrupt the DNC is/ was....

I suggest we look at where the actual corruption occurs, in each case.

The second definition I find online, is actually the better one to recognize:

"the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.
synonyms: alteration, bastardization, debasement, adulteration
"these figures have been subject to corruption""

Corruption is anything where the actual claimed or desired goal or property is set aside in order to do something else, all while pretending to continue to do as your ideals command.

In that sense, there is a LOT of corruption going on, both among politicians AND among voters.

Where many voters actively choose corruption, these days especially, is where they vote for someone who they KNOW doesn't hold to their ideals, because they hope that politician will do something else that they want. I call it "transference" a lot of the time.

Easy example: we've now seen BOTH major parties vote in a known womanizer, despite themselves being opposed to the bad behavior, because they wanted that person to do OTHER things for them.

I would say for certain, that the voting public as a group is absolutely to blame for corruption, every time they vote for someone for such contrary reasons. Vote in someone who you KNOW cheats, because you hope they will cheat against the people who you dislike, more than they cheat you, is the height of personal corruption.

The one main caveat I have about it, is that I have zero patience with the people who pop up and nod sagely and say "the voters got the bad government they DESERVED." That's self-righteous, self-serving balderdash, in my opinion. Saying someone DESERVES something, is usually a way of saying that you are going to make zero effort yourself to try to fix the problem, and are instead going to let everything fall apart, while patting yourself on the back for being so "cleverly insightful."

Good points, I hadn't thought of it from that perception regarding the term 'deserved'. How do you feel about the observation that people tend to vote for others who REFLECT the ideals they hold. So if you are seeing corrupt politicians maybe it is because there is some corrupt part to those who vote them in.

Yeah, that's brilliant. Seriously can't believe I'm witnessing this.

msharmony:

I don't like it. Not because is CAN'T be true, but because it's a slippery and tricky consideration.

If it is used as a sort of starting point possibility, that is, to question whether or not you chose a given vote for the wrong reasons, it's excellent. But too often, I've seen it used as a manipulative trick, by people who wanted to entirely dismiss the concerns of the people who supported a given candidate; to label them as corrupt, and therefore to be ignored, or even punished.

The main thing I was trying to get at, is that it a common occurrence, that people who have become very frustrated with the status quo, and in particular with how the structure of the existing rule systems make it hard to directly address their problems, will jump to vote in someone who delights them by "tweaking the nose" of the legal system, so to speak.

Then once the person IS in power, the voters are always surprised to find that people who think the rules don't apply to them, usually think that NONE of the rules apply to them. Not just the ones that the voter was frustrated about.

I can use this as an example, read into it as want...


Obama's running for his second term, and I was talking with a young lady I know at a bar, and she starts talking about how she's voting for him... I ask her if she likes socialism, and she replies what's that got to do with anything? So I tell her he was the president of the socialist chapter at Occidental college... She starts going off about how he never went there, and I had no idea what I was talking about. A few others get involved, and finally a few people looked it up and found out it was true... During that time, I figured out that the only reason she was voting for him was his stance on gay marriage, nothing else...she's not gay, but her mother is. She had no idea who or what Obama was, only he was for gay marriage... How many others vote for a party because of just one thing they say, and discarding everything else? I'm not bashing Dems here, I'm sure lots voted repub just because they're against gay marriage at the same time...

My point being that the voters aren't corrupt, just ignorant of all the issues...

Linked? No.
I don't think the corruption in politics is "caused" by the voters.
Politicians are voters too.
They're all people.
People being people.
Corruption in politics is linked to politicians being human beings.
If there's an increase or decrease in instances of "corruption" then look at the culture/society that influences the population the politicians are being drawn from. That does include voters, it also includes non voters. Everyone. And their pets. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.

as usual, intelligent reply...