Honest vs. dishonest corruption
“I guess all we can do is try to vote for an honest candidate,” said an exasperated CNMI voter, after lamenting the corruption of some of our government officials. “We must elect men and women of unbreached integrity.”
Unfortunately, this tends to be the misguided view of most well-meaning citizens. We want to elect honest political candidates–candidates who will not abuse taxpayer funds for their own personal use. We want political leaders who will not accept bribes.
Yet, at the same time, there may well be a danger to electing so-called “honest” candidates. Indeed, in some cases, the CNMI might even be much better off with a corrupt official instead of a so-called “honest” candidate. A politician could be “honest” and yet still be highly detrimental to our best interests.
Merely consider the case of the honest politician who also happens to be a socialist.
We must realize that many socialists are honest people. They may even be said to be men of integrity, insofar as they consistently adhere to their avowed philosophical principles.
A true socialist, we might say, is an example of “honest corruption.” He has good intentions. He genuinely wants to do good, to benefit humanity, and to help his fellow man.
He wants nothing for himself. He merely wants to help others. As a result, he will not take bribes or use our tax dollars for his extravagant, luxurious enjoyment. He will not personally enrich himself at our taxpayer expense.
But the honest socialist–this so-called “honest candidate”–is indistinguishable from the dishonest, corrupt politician in this one respect: He will still steal from you. He will still rob you. He will still separate you from your money.
The only difference is: The honest socialist will be stealing from you out in the open. He will be doing it legally and openly. He will be doing it by passing laws to take money from one group in order to give to another group. The socialist will be stealing for the benefit of “others,” not for himself personally, or at least not directly.
But from the taxpayer’s point of view, what does it matter whether his money is going directly into the pockets of corrupt government officials or toward special interest groups at the direction of honest socialists? Either way, his money is still being unjustly expropriated no matter what (for causes and programs that have little or no bearing upon his welfare, except to compromise it).
Make no mistake, in the realm of politics, the honest candidate can be just as dangerous as the most corrupt incumbent politician. Morally, it makes no difference whether we are dealing with honest or dishonest corruption, for both are utterly contemptible. Theft is theft, whether it be for yourself or for the benefit of others.
On the pragmatic or economic side, however, the “honest” candidate can be far more damaging to individuals, because he can generally take more from the taxpayer in the name of the so-called “common good” or public welfare. A corrupt politician, by contrast, can only take so much before he risks getting caught. But an honest socialist can bilk us for many, many millions–and for generations yet to come (FDR’s Social Security, for example).
